Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Woodhall Spa Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

North Cotswold Rural District Council Bill [Lords],

Shoreham Harbour Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION (WATER GAS ELECTRICITY AND TRANSPORT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Corporation (Water Gas Electricity and Transport)," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

ELGIN AND LOSSIEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Elgin and Lossiemouth Harbour," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Paisley Corporation," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

POOR RELIEF, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Return ordered,
showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1937 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 116, of Session 1935–36).—[Sir K. Wood.]

RESOLUTIONS, ETC., BY EITHER HOUSE.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GARRO JONES:
That there be laid before this House a Return showing those Statutes passed since 1924 under which either House of Parliament (alternatively) is empowered to annul or give legislative force to any measures by Resolution, Order, Humble Address, or otherwise.

Mr. Garro Jones: Am I to understand that the Return for which I ask is not to be granted?

Mr. Speaker: Before a Return of this kind can be ordered by the House, the assent of the Department concerned must be obtained, and I understand that assent has not been given in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ITALY (CLEARING AGREEMENT).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that official statistics have been issued in Rome of the amount of Italy's trade debts which have been redeemed under the clearing agreement of November last; and whether he is now in a position to give the House any information on this matter?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am aware that, according to newspaper reports, certain particulars of the trade debts due to this country from Italy which had been liquidated under the Clearing Agreement of 6th November last were given recently in an official statement made in the Italian Senate, but I am not aware that the Italian Government publish official statistics on this subject. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the monthly statements issued by the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office which are published in the Board of Trade Journal. The total of the payments in respect of arrears of trade debts which had been made to United Kingdom creditors at the close of business on 15th July was £1,755,346.

IRON ORE, SPAIN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether General Franco's verbal consent to the Oreonora Company continuing to mine and ship ore to England has been or will be committed to writing?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the informal assurances regarding the supply of iron ore referred to in an answer given to the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on 22nd June, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does it matter whether assurances coming from that quarter are verbal or in writing?

Mr. Stanley: I am prepared to trust these assurances whether they are verbal or otherwise.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about a reported agreement between General Franco and the German Government for a monopoly of these iron ores?

Mr. Stanley: I have seen a report in this morning's newspapers, but I have no further information.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is this company able to carry on its business unimpeded?

Mr. Stanley: I should require notice of that question. As a matter of fact, quite recently there has been obstruction in the river, and I do not think that sea communications have been resumed.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have these obstructions come from the local authorities?

Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of obstruction by any authority. It is a case of physical obstruction in the river which makes navigation impossible.

INDIA.

Sir Charles Barrie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the Government of India regarding a new trade agreement?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on 7th July.

Sir C. Barrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that due care will be taken to safeguard the jute trade of this country when the agreement comes to be signed?

Mr. Stanley: That is a matter which, obviously, is in my mind. I can make no statement about the negotiations while they are in progress.

JUTE CLOTH (IMPORTS).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the abnormal increase in recent years in the imports of jute cloth, including hessians, into the United Kingdom and the effect of this increase on production in the home market; and whether the Government will now consider any means of protecting British producers in the jute industry?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the recent increase in imports of jute cloth, and I have the question under active consideration.

Miss Horsbrugh: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he has received representations from members of all political parties asking for protection for the jute industry?

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the increase in imports of eggs in shell from Denmark during the first six months


of the present year to 5,099,694 great hundreds compared with a figure of 3,634,510 for the corresponding period last year and 2,968,263 for the corresponding period in 1935, he will make representations to the Danish Government so as to secure that, pending the negotiation of a new trade agreement, the British egg market is not disorganised by a glut of imports of eggs from Denmark;
(2) whether he is aware that importations of eggs from the Netherlands for the first six months of the year have increased from 476,258 great hundreds in 1933 to 2,159,766 this year; and whether he will notify the Netherlands Government that, unless these imports are materially reduced in the next six months of the year, in the event of compulsory regulation of egg imports being adopted by the Government it will be necessary to regulate drastically the importation of eggs from the Netherlands?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend, but I would point out that total imports of eggs in shell in the first six months of this year were lower than the total imports in the corresponding period of 1936, while the price of eggs has for some weeks been higher than it was at the corresponding date of any of the three previous years. I do not see my way to adopting the suggestions contained in the questions.

Mr. Turton: In the case of Holland will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that there is no trade agreement with this country, and therefore take steps to secure that the home market is not stolen from British producers by the Dutch?

Mr. Stanley: I will bear that in mind, but the hon. Member will appreciate that there is no immediate fear of a glut in view of the actual decrease in imports, and the rise in the price of eggs

Mr. Turton: Have not the imports from Holland increased five times?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get away from the Free Trade principles of his predecessor?

Mr. Leonard: How many efforts have been made to reorganise this industry, to which it has always failed to respond?

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications made to him during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date by exhibitors for an exemption certificate through their inability to comply with the quota conditions laid down in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Member was informed in answer to a question on 26th January last, details are not available of the number of applications made for certificates of exemption.

Mr. Day: How many certificates have been granted, and how many proceedings have been taken against people who have not complied with the Act?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will circulate a draft of the proposed Film Quota Bill before the House rises, or during the Recess, in view of the necessity for detailed consideration of its provisions?

Mr. Riley: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be able to make a statement with regard to legislation dealing with the reorganisation of the film industry?

Mr. Stanley: I hope to be in a position to make a statement of the Government's proposals on films legislation before the Recess, but it will not be possible to introduce a Bill before the House rises.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the contemplated legislation is likely to be somewhat involved and entirely non-party, and in those circumstances, does he not agree that it would be an advantage to Members in all parts of the House to have a draft Bill to consider at leisure during the Recess?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid it would be quite impossible to produce anything in the nature of a draft Bill, but I am proposing to issue, for the convenience of hon. Members, a statement in the form of a White Paper, which I will endeavour to make as full as possible.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of not encouraging British film-producing companies to waste money in order to qualify for protection?

Mr. Kirkwood: Before the draft Bill is produced, will the Minister see to it that the point of view of Scottish cinematograph operators is considered?

Mr. Stanley: All points of view of every section of the industry have been given to the Board of Trade over the last few months, and all of them are being considered.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT LICENCES, CHINA).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade upon what date the last licences were granted for the export of war material from this country to China?

Mr. Stanley: One export licence for war material for China was issued on 12th July, 1937.

Mr. Day: Are other Government Departments consulted before these licences are granted?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Departments are consulted?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

BELGIUM.

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any reciprocal concessions will be made to Belgium in return for the reliefs in quotas granted by the Belgian Government to Great Britain on the lines of the Oslo Convention?

Mr. Stanley: As I have previously stated, the Belgian Government have voluntarily extended to this country, in view of the trade relations between the two countries, the benefit of the quota reliefs accorded by them to the other signatories of the recent agreement between the Oslo countries. Accordingly, the question of reciprocal concessions by this country to Belgium does not arise.

Mr. Burke: Will not mutual agreements have to be made to help international trade?

Mr. Stanley: That is a different question. This is a case where we have been given a concession without other questions having been raised.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. Banfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether every effort is being made to see that the re-rollers in the iron and steel industry are provided with a better supply of billets to the rolling mills; and whether he can make any statement to allay the present anxiety among both employers and workmen?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the shortage of billets in the rolling mills of the Midlands is causing unemployment; and whether he will take steps to secure an increase in the available supply?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that certain firms of re-rollers have experienced difficulties through the shortage of steel billets, and I can assure the hon. Members that every effort is being made to increase the supply. Assurances have recently been given regarding further supplies from the Continent which, it is expected, will materially improve the position.

Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the assurances are?

Mr. Stanley: Assurances have been given by members of the Cartel, especially the French members, of an increased supply in the coming months.

TEA (PRICES).

Mr. Leonard: asked the President of the Board of Trade the wholesale price of Java tea in 1932 and the price last week for Java tea, together with the figures at the same periods for Ceylon teas?

Mr. Stanley: According to information published by the Tea Brokers' Association of London, the average wholesale price of Java tea in 1932 was 6.42d. per lb., and in the week ended 15th July, 1937, 13.12d. per lb. The average prices of Ceylon tea in the same periods were 11.17d. and 15.15d. per lb., respectively. The prices are exclusive of duty.

Mr. Leonard: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to agree that a great weight has been put on the poorer types of tea, and will he draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the unfair incidence of taxation on these types of tea?

Mr. Stanley: As a matter of fact I do not think that the figures can be taken entirely on their face value, because I understand that there has been a considerable increase in the quality of Java tea which accounts to some extent for the increase in price.

Mr. Leonard: Does not that still leave a considerable difference between Ceylon and Java teas; and that the cheaper teas are still consumed by the poorer sections of the community?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that owing to bad weather the quality of Ceylon tea during the last few years has been lower and that of Java tea higher, so that the difference is not as great as it was.

Mr. George Griffiths: Do not the Government take matters on their face value just when it suits them?

CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Leonard: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the various voluntary attempts that have been made to compile a census of distribution; the limitations under which such efforts have laboured; and whether he will take steps to institute a census of distribution capable of presenting to the nation a true picture of this important service?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on this subject, in the Debate on 29th January last on the Shops (Retail Trading Safeguards) Bill.

Mr. Leonard: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the voluntary efforts that have been made by other organisations is a measure of the value of such a census to trade in this country in general, and in view of the fact that voluntary efforts have failed, will he not press upon the Government the desirability of a census of distribution being taken which will be complementary to the census of production?

Mr. Stanley: The Parliamentary Secretary has informed the House, and I have recently given an assurance to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), that we should be ready to receive on this subject a deputation representing associations which are interested, and if the hon. Member would send in the names of associations of traders which desire this census, it would be of assistance to us.

Mr. Cartland: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a copy of a census of distribution carried out by certain commercial firms in this country as an indication of what might be done?

Mr. Stanley: I think a copy has been sent to the Board of Trade officially.

OSLO AGREEMENT.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Oslo Agreement is working satisfactorily; and whether it is the intenton of the Government to associate itself in some form with those countries who are signatories to the agreement, with a view to a modification of trade barriers?

Mr. Stanley: As regards the first part of the question, I have no information. As regards the second part, my information is that other States may adhere to the Convention subject to reaching a preliminary agreement with the signatory States. This would appear to involve negotiations with each of the signatory States as to the special concessions which might be made. In these circumstances, I do not think that the question of the participation of the United Kingdom Government in the agreement can usefully be considered apart from the existing bilateral agreements which govern the trade relations between this country and the majority of the "Oslo" countries.

Mr. Shinwell: May we take it that the Government are in complete sympathy with the principle underlying that agreement, and, if that be so, can the Government indicate what are their views?

Mr. Stanley: As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, speaking last night, stated quite plainly the agreement of His Majesty's Government with the ideals of the Oslo group. That does not necessarily say they always think the arrangements for reaching those ideals are the best possible.

Mr. Benn: Does that mean that action must be postponed until the expiry of the trade agreements?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: While appreciating their oft-repeated desire for freer trade, may I ask when we may expect His Majesty's Government to give tangible expression to these desires?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Mr. A. Reed: Is it not a fact that our agreements with Scandinavian countries actually reduced duties, and therefore set an example for the later Osle Agreement?

RATIONALISATION OF INDUSTRIES.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recommendations contained in the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee regarding rationalisation in the iron and steel industry, it is intended to ask the Committee to report on the need for rationalisation in other industries which are afforded the advantages of protection?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware that there were special circumstances leading to the inquiry into the iron and steel industry by the Import Duties Advisory Committee which are not present in the case of other industries.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether, in view of the measure of success attending the efforts of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in regard to the iron and steel industry, it would not be possible to extend those activities in other desirable directions?

Mr. Stanley: The position was this. It was the Import Duties Advisory Committee which, when considering an application for duties, called attention to the need for reorganisation, and it is possible for them, whenever they are considering an application for duties, to call attention to the need for reorganisation in the industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his predecessor stated definitely in the course of the Debate that he intended, because of the difficulties surrounding the organisation of the iron and steel industry, to make such reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee? He took the initiative himself.

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. As far back as 1932, when the question of duties on iron and steel was before the Committee, the Committee called attention to the need for reorganisation in the industry.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister think that the results of the iron and steel rationalisation have been such a frantic success that he wants to extend it to other industries?

Mr. Stanley: There have, of course, been difficulties, but, on the whole, I think it is working extremely well.

Mr. Mander: Is it not part of the duty of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to watch these matters in connection with all industries, and report to the Government?

FOOD STORAGE.

Sir Francis Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the desirability of establishing widely-dispersed centres for food storage on a large scale?

Mr. Stanley: Suggestions of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are receiving close consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WELSH ANTHRACITE (EXPORTS).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the exports of Welsh anthracite to the United States of America declined from 177,285 tons in 1930 to 60,941 tons in 1936 and that the imports of Russian anthracite into the United States of America increased from 193,131 tons in 1930 to 425,000 tons in 1936; whether he can give reasons for this decline in Welsh exports to the United States of America; and what steps he is taking to deal with the matter?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that there has been an increase in imports of Russian anthracite into the United States of America, and a decline in imports from South Wales, in spite of the fact that Russian anthracite is subject to an import duty of two dollars per short ton, from which Welsh anthracite is exempt.


The cause is presumably a very low price for Russian anthracite, which allows it to compete successfully with the United States product as well as with other imported anthracite. Since United Kingdom anthracite already enjoys a very large tariff preference, I do not see what steps are open to me.

Viscountess Astor: Could my hon. and gallant Friend tell us whether the reason why the Russian anthracite is cheaper is that women work in the mines in Russia?

Captain Sir William Brass: Is any of the shipping which carries the anthracite subsidised?

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the exports of Welsh anthracite to France in 1936 showed a reduction of 139,503 tons as compared with 1933, and that the imports of anthracite into France from Russia and Indo-China in the same period showed an increase of 192,000 tons; whether he can give reasons for this decline in Welsh exports; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware of the position described in the first part of the question. I would remind the hon. Member that Indo-Chinese anthracite, being a colonial product, is exempt from quota and import duties in France while the increase in Russian imports appears to be mainly due to the allocation of a quota to that country as from the year 1934. I am glad to be able to inform the House that exports of United Kingdom anthracite to France during the first six months of 1937 show an increase of over 117,000 tons, or over 24 per cent., as compared with the first six months of 1936.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not also a fact that the exports of other countries have increased at the same time; and in view of the fact that our exports of coal continue to decline, are the Government really considering any steps in the matter? Is not the time overdue for pressing for a European coal agreement to regulate and fix exports?

Captain Crookshank: I think that I have answered all those questions separately at different times in the last few weeks. As regards the decrease, I pointed out that, as far as this country

is concerned, there has been an increase of 24 per cent. this year.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not think that the time is opportune for an agreement, may I ask him what steps the Government think ought to be taken and are taking in this matter?

Captain Crookshank: I have already expressed my views on that point.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms of foreign origin have been granted patent rights in this country to extract oil from coal; how many firms have exercised their patent rights by the establishment of works; to what countries patent rights have been granted in the years 1935, 1936 and 1937; and whether any objections have been raised by British firms in the like business and in the same years?

Mr. Stanley: In reply to the first part of the question, United Kingdom patents relating to the extraction of oil from coal have been granted in the last 24 years to 62 different persons and companies residing or carrying on business in foreign countries; as regards the third part of the question in 1935, 1936 and 1937 90 patents for such inventions were granted in this country to persons in Liechtenstein, 34 to Germany, 12 to France, 7 to Switzerland, 4 to the United States of America, 3 to Australia, and 2 to the United Kingdom. Information on the second and fourth parts of the question is not available.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to state whether the hydrogenation plant at Billingham is a commercial success or otherwise; and, if he is not in possession of the information, will he approach Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, with a view to obtaining the information?

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement on the Government proposals for extracting oil from coal; and when the Falmouth Committee intends to report?

Sir Philip Dawson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the plants proposed to be installed in the distressed areas are to be merely low-temperature


carbonisation processes which cannot materially increase the demand from coal, or whether other processes such as we are now operating in Germany, and which directly or indirectly convert the whole of coal substance into liquid fuel, will be put down, or whether a combination of low-temperature carbonisation and of some other processes will be installed?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot make any statement on this subject until the Falmouth Committee has reported, and I cannot yet say when that will be.

—
Coal Consumed in


1934.
1935.
1936.
1937 (estimated).




Thousand Tons.



Hydrogenation …
Nil Plant under construction.
257(a)
425(a)
450


High Temperature Carbonisation.
34,787
35,477
39,116
40,000


Low Temperature Carbonisation.
284
327(b)
384(b)
530

RELIEF FUNDS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will initiate inquiries to ascertain whether in order to support the Brymbo Disaster Relief Fund

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal consumed in Great Britain in 1934, 1935, and 1936, and the estimated consumption for the present year in hydrogenation, in high-temperature carbonisation, and in low-temperature carbonisation, respectively; and the respective quantities of petrol or benzol, and of heavy oils produced?

Captain Crookshank: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

or the Brymbo Memorial Fund, any of the following funds can be used: Longton Fund, 1889, Talke Fund, 1866, or any other funds raised for the relief of the victims of colliery disasters?

Captain Crookshank: The Longton Fund, 1889, is exhausted, but I have communicated with the Secretary of the Talke Fund, and I will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will authorise the collection of the fullest possible information at mines where more than three cases of silicosis have been certified, showing the names and addresses of men who, in the last 20 years, have been engaged in boring with the use of machines either in hard headings or in ripping, with the type of machines used and the yardage of hard headings driven; and whether he would extend an invitation to the workmen's representatives at these mines to collaborate in supplying further information regarding the effect of such employment upon the persons so employed in order that a complete record of the extent of disability ensuing upon this class of work should be ascertained?

Captain Crookshank: I am in full sympathy with the general object in view, but I do not think an investigation on the lines proposed could prove sufficient or satisfactory. There are, for example, a good many cases of silicosis among coal miners who have never used machine drills and, moreover, the nature and extent of disability in a particular case could not be reliably determined without medical examination. The investigation of these problems on different lines and the co-operation of His Majesty's inspectors and the workers' representatives in those investigations will be the subject of reply to a later question to-day to be given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Grenfell: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that not a single case of a workman who has to work for a considerable time on boring machines ever survives, and is not that sufficient case for an inquiry into that special kind of work?

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the reply which is to be given later.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the highest incidence of silicosis in mines is among anthracite miners, according to the figures which the Minister has given,

and that boring in anthracite mines is in excess of that of any other district? Does not that prove the contention?

Mr. Grenfell: Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman accept the suggestion which I made for consultation with the workmen, who have a great deal of local knowledge in this matter which may prove useful?

Captain Crookshank: I can only say that a similar question has been put down to the Chancellor of the Duchy who will reply to that point.

BUNKER COAL.

Mr. White: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received any report from the committee which is considering the possibility of obtaining an increased use of coal for bunkering purposes and other cognate matters?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.

Mr. White: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when we may expect to receive this report, and what possibility there is of action on it in view of the fact that the existing conditions are very unsatisfactory and a considerable volume of trade is lost?

Captain Crookshank: I think they are investigating the matter with all possible dispatch. It is a very complicated and technical subject.

WAGE-EARNERS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of workers at the mines of Yorkshire on 30th April, 1930, 1933 and 1937, or the nearest day?

Captain Crookshank: On 1st May, 1937, there were 140,300 wage-earners on colliery books in Yorkshire, as compared with 170,100 and 145,600 respectively at corresponding dates in 1930 and 1933.

Mr. Griffiths: Not much prosperity for miners in Yorkshire on those figures, is there?

Captain Crookshank: Prosperity is a relative term.

BOY WORKERS, YORKSHIRE (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of accidents to boys under 16 years of age in the Yorkshire coal mines for 1936, and the number of boys killed for 1936 in the Yorkshire coal mines?

Captain Crookshank: During the year 1936, six persons under 16 years of age were killed and 1,188 injured (disabled for more than three days) at mines under the Coal Mines Act in Yorkshire.

PETROL.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines the figures of imported petrol to this country and the figures of home-produced petrol?

Captain Crookshank: In 1936 the quantity of imported motor spirit retained in this country, including spirit produced from imported crude petroleum was, in round figures, 1,290 million gallons. The quantity of motor spirit produced from coal and other indigenous materials was 92 million gallons.

SHOT-FIRING.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines to what extent simultaneous shot-firing is taking place; and whether the inquiry into this method is taking place?

Captain Crookshank: The investigations into simultaneous shot-firing which by special permission were made in certain safety lamp pits were brought to an end in July, 1936. Like investigations are still proceeding in certain naked light mines and stone drifts; for these no special permission is required.

AGREEMENTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary for Mines whether any action is contemplated to extend the principle embodied in the Anglo-Polish coal agreement to other coal-producing countries?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the second part of the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) on 15th June last.

EXPORTS.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the fact that since 1929 Germany's share of the export coal trade of Germany and this country has increased from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.; that this is mainly due to heavy subsidisation of German coal, and that the possibility of a satisfactory European coal cartel is unlikely; and, in view of the serious situation of the British coal export trade and of early consideration by the Government,

will he consult with the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association with regard to it?

Captain Crookshank: I am continuously in consultation on all these important matters with these and other organisations representing the different interests in the coal industry.

Mr. Jenkins: Has the Minister discussed lately with the Coalowners' Association or the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain this very substantial decrease in the percentage of export coal from Great Britain as compared with the percentage of export coal from Germany?

Captain Crookshank: I have just said that I am always in touch with the people concerned with this matter.

SUPPLIES, NEWTON-IN-MAKERFIELD.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the inability of the urban district council of Newton-in-Makerfield to purchase coal in Lancashire; that as a result the council's gas undertaking is seriously handicapped and the supply of gas threatened, and that the Lancashire Associated Collieries refuse to quote prices for the supply of coal on the ground that they have no coal to offer; and whether he can explain the reason for this state of things in relation to an adequate coal supply and take steps to remove the causes of complaint without delay?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed that while in 1935 this council purchased a proportion of its gas coal from Lancashire, in 1936 it purchased its supplies almost entirely from North Staffordshire and Yorkshire, the only exception being 800 tons which was bought from Lancashire, and the contract for which has been renewed this year. The council has now asked Lancashire Associated Collieries to quote for the same qualities of Lancashire coal as it purchased in 1935, but when its custom was transferred to other districts this coal was sold to other consumers and is not now available. Other qualities of Lancashire gas coal have been offered to the council, as well as a renewal of its contracts with North Staffordshire and Yorkshire. There is no question in this case either of a shortage of supplies of coal or of a threat to the supply of gas.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State let the pits in South Yorkshire know? We are still finding some coal there, and it would provide work for some men.

REPATRIATION OF SEAMEN (CONVENTION).

Viscountess Astor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the international Convention on the repatriation of seamen has now been ratified by 17 countries, including the maritime Powers, France, Belgium, Italy, China, Spain, and Germany, it is contemplated that this country will ratify in the near future?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the Noble Lady to the reply given by my predecessor to her question of 16th March last. The position of His Majesty's Government in regard to ratification of the Convention remains unchanged.

Viscountess Astor: Does not my right hon. Friend think it deplorable that the British Government have to be led by other Governments in ratifying this Convention which deals only with the question of repatriating seamen who have been wrecked?

Mr. Stanley: It has been clearly laid down by His Majesty's Government that they will reconsider the matter as soon as six of the principal maritime nations are prepared to do so. Only two of the six leading countries have done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS (TERRITORIAL INFANTRY).

Mr. Watt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance, in view of the shortage of infantry in the Territorial Army, that no further infantry will be converted into anti-aircraft units, but that such units will be recruited separately?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The balance between one arm and another in the Regular and Territorial Armies depends upon strategic considerations, and in accordance with these is liable to change from time to time.

Mr. Watt: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that men who enlist for service in the infantry in the Territorial Army will not be transferred to other branches of the Service against their wishes?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer which I have given probably covers that point, but I cannot say any more without notice.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not a breach of contract in the real sense of the word that when a man joins a particular regiment because he desires to do so, he shall be transferred against his will to some other unit?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: One can adopt the attitude of trying to smooth difficulties, or of adding to them.

Mr. Petherick: Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend can give no such assurance as is suggested in the question?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that the considerations which govern this matter are strategic, and the Government must have liberty to propose what is in the national interest.

Mr. Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the policy of manning anti-aircraft units with Territorials is to be continued; and within what time they could reach their posts in sufficient numbers to fight as efficient units in the event of war?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, I hope my hon. Friend will realise that it would be inadvisable to state publicly the exact period within which these units will be required to deploy, but I anticipate that when the arrangements are fully developed, they will be able to deploy as quickly as regular soldiers.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will the Minister encourage the maintenance of tradition and esprit de corps in these units, and will he also mantain close touch between these units and the regular units with which they are affiliated?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.

TERRITORIAL UNITS (LONDON).

27. Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for War what changes are under consideration in connection with London Territorial units?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind. If he will let we know, I will communicate further with him.

Mr. Petherick: Are any changes contemplated which would entail the conversion of infantry units of the Territorial Army, in London or elsewhere, into anti-aircraft units, or units of any other branch?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would require notice of that question.

MILK SUPPLY (FORT TREGANTLE, PLYMOUTH).

Mr. Lambert: asked the Secretary of State for War whether fresh liquid milk is issued to all the troops at Fort Tregantle, Plymouth, or only to the officers' and sergeants' messes.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The troops at Fort Tregantle are in a weapon training camp open only from April to September—the average strength being 280. The men stay there a week to a month, and more than one unit may be represented. The practice with regard to purchasing fresh or tinned milk, therefore, varies according to the arrangements made by the particular messing officer, whose duty it is to consult the wishes of the troops. I am informed that fresh milk is being purchased by the officers' and sergeants' messes at Fort Tregantle, and that the men's mess formerly purchased fresh milk but have since expressed a preference for tinned milk.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Minister take a ballot on it among the men?

BARRACK ROOMS (CHAIRS).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any estimate has been made of the cost of replacing forms in barrack rooms with chairs.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir; the conditions vary so much.

Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter further, and see whether it would not be possible to remove considerable discomfort at comparatively little expense?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir; we are making progress in the matter.

GUNNER'S DEATH, TAMWORTH.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner W. Swinley, of the fourth A.A.M.C. battery, Royal Artillery, stationed at Whittingdon Barracks, Lichfield, Staffs, was killed on the railway near Tamworth station on the morning of 13th February last; that the man was run over by an express train on part of a short cut commonly followed by late entrants to the barracks; and whether he is now able to say, out of ascertained knowledge of the man's movements on the date in question, that his death was purely accidental?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have read of this unfortunate occurrence. The place where Gunner Swinley met his death is five miles from Lichfield Barracks, and is not a short cut commonly used by troops returning to the barracks at night. I am, of course, unable to add anything to the coroner's verdict, of the nature of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware.

Mr. Kennedy: Is there any evidence to show that this man's death was other than purely accidental?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to add to the evidence which was given before the coroner. The verdict was "Suicide, but insufficient evidence to show the state of the man's mind." I cannot add to that.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons who have been granted pensions during the previous three years on account of tuberculosis attributable to the conditions of service; and how these figures compare with those for the corresponding 12 months?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Of the soldiers invalided from the Army for tuberculosis during the last three years, the following numbers were awarded attributable disability pensions:—

1934
…
…
…
58


1935
…
…
…
58


1936
…
…
…
83

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what manner the authorities have removed cases which are attributable to this disease?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not follow the hon. Member's question.

GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Markham: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement concerning the employment of men over 45 years of age in Government factories; and whether he will press for the abolition of any restrictive regulations concerning their recruitment?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There has been no change of policy since the hon. Member was informed in reply to a question on 13th April last, that discretion is already given to heads of establishments to engage men over 45 years of age.

Mr. Markham: Do I understand from that answer that the Minister will not press for a modification of the Superannuation Acts which do limit the employment of men over 45 in these factories; and can he say whether that veto has been dispensed with or not?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: A man must have 15 years' service before he gets a gratuity, and I do not understand in what respect the hon. Gentleman would desire that to be modified.

Mr. Paling: Is it not very difficult for men over 45 to get jobs, because employers will not employ them over that age, and should not the Government set a better example?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think I have shown that they are setting a better example.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman's discretion being exercised in this matter in the case of the Special Areas, where many men over 45 are being debarred from employment in this way, including a large number of ex-service men?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Gentleman has any facts which he desires to bring to my attention I shall examine them with the utmost sympathy, but I

am not aware of any cases such as he appears to have in mind.

Mr. Markham: Is it not a fact that in the Nottingham gun factory where this regulation is supposed to have been suspended, only one man in ten taken on has been over 45; and seeing that the present Superannuation Acts are definitely antipathetic to ex-service men in this respect, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter further?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring any particular case to my notice, I shall look into it, but those responsible for this work must have regard for efficiency, and there is nothing in the regulations which prevents a man over 45 being employed.

Mr. Markham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, LINLITHGOW.

34. Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is taking steps to make progress with the installation of electric current into housing schemes in the County of Linlithgow, where great delay is taking place on account of the dilatoriness of the Scottish Central Electric Power Company and its associated company, the Scottish Midlands Electricity Supply, Limited, in carrying out the instructions of the county council?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I understand that there has been some delay in connection with the provision of electric current for certain housing schemes in the County of West Lothian, but this has not retarded the erection of houses which are in some cases already occupied. I have communicated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport who is causing inquiries to be made into the matter by the Electricity Commissioners.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the failure of the Herring Industry Board to achieve any adequate expansion of foreign markets for herring, His Majesty's


Government will enter into direct negotiations with the Governments of Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland, and the Baltic States for the sale of this season's cure?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that practically all the herring cured this season have already been sold, and that the curers are satisfied that they can find markets for their further production. Direct negotiation by the Government for sales appears to be undesirable.

Sir Edmund Findlay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what price this arrangement has been made?

Mr. Elliot: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question down.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister's reply mean that we are not to have a recurrence of the state of affairs in which fishermen brought in herring and had to empty them back into the sea because there was no market?

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the failure of the Herring Fishery Board to effect any substantial improvements in the conduct of the industry, he will consider calling for the resignation of the present members and introducing emergency legislation to set up a new board with adequate powers?

Mr. Elliot: The board's performance of their very difficult duties does not, in my opinion, warrant the suggestion made in the question. The question of extension of the board's existing powers is at present receiving consideration.

Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the present board has lost the confidence of the herring industry; and in view of the desperate plight of the industry does he not think drastic steps should be taken?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that is by any means a universal opinion.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the report of the Herring Fishery Board; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take with regard to it?

Mr. Elliot: I have received and am considering the report referred to. As regards the second part of the question, I

think the matter would be more suitable for discussion in Thursday's Debate on the estimates for the Herring Industry Board.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the report of the Herring Industry Board that there is scope for increased consumption of herring in the home market, what steps, if any, are being taken to ensure that the needy populations in the distressed areas will be specially considered?

Mr. Elliot: As the recent report of the Herring Industry Board shows, efforts are being made to increase the consumption of herring in the home market, and it is hoped that utimately there will be an increased sale of this cheap and palatable food in all sections of the community, including the distressed areas.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? What steps, if any, apart from hope, are being taken to ensure that the needy population get these herring?

Mr. Elliot: I think it would be undesirable to go into this matter at Question Time, when there will be a full Debate on Thursday.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the largest trading organisation in Scotland, the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society, is willing to place its great organisation at his disposal if he will wake up in this matter?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not a sad fact that even people in distressed areas will not eat food if they do not like it?

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Herring Industry Board for the period March, 1936, to March, 1937, with the disclosure that the average gross earnings of Scots herring boats are £1,495 per annum, while English boats earn £2,487; whether the Herring Industry Board can suggest any feasible explanation of this wide disparity beyond the greater poverty of the Scots fishermen whereby they are less able to provide repairs and maintenance for their vessels; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: The report of the Herring Industry Board, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, suggests several reasons for the difference between the earnings of the Scottish and English boats. As I have already indicated in reply to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), the discussion of matters arising out of the report can, I think, more suitably be undertaken in Thursday's Debate than in the course of question and answer.

Mr. Johnston: Do we understand that the Secretary of State will be prepared to answer specifically the last part of the question on Thursday, namely, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: The specific answer to the question what steps, if any, I propose to take includes the answer that there might be no steps. I prefer not to add to what I have said.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that during the year 1935 Russia purchased 105,500 barrels of herring from this country, and that this purchase dropped to 20,000 barrels in 1936; what results have accrued from the contact established by the Herring Board with the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the coming season; and whether he will take urgent steps to aid the Herring Board's efforts to extend their Russian market?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am informed that the Herring Industry Board have been unable to come to terms for the sale of this season's catch to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for reasons of price. With regard to the last part, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which I have to-day given on a similar point to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up till noon to-day neither he nor his Office had taken any steps to induce the Russian buying organisation to participate in a larger proportion of the herring catch?

Mr. Elliot: I pointed out in answer to the previous question that surely it is desirable that the Herring Board should

take such steps, having been set up by the House for that purpose.

Mr. Johnston: When the Herring Board has failed, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything?

Mr. Elliot: I do not want to be responsible for accepting the price of 10s. a cran.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If it is a fact that the contract with Russia has broken down, how can it be that the curers are satisfied, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there will be a full sale of the catch to Germany?

Mr. Elliot: Because they are selling so many in Germany.

Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend really mean to say that he is satisfied, and that the curers are satisfied, that they can dispose of the whole of the Scottish cure this year, to Germany alone?

Mr. Elliot: No, I did not say that.

HOUSING.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that 18 tenants of houses at 155, Orr Street, Glasgow, have received notice to look for other housing accommodation; whether he has now made inquiry as to whether the houses in question are controlled; and, if so, will he take steps to assist the people concerned with the necessary legal assistance to retain them in possession of their houses or provide them with alternative accommodation, as provided for by the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. Elliot: I have no information regarding the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I have no power to intervene in a matter of this kind. Any dispute regarding the right of the owner of a house, whether controlled or decontrolled, to obtain possession thereof can be determined only by the courts. As regards the last part, if the tenants are poor persons who require legal assistance they should apply to the sheriff clerk.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some factors are sending out notices as if they were official court notices, and will he make it clear that in the case of these controlled houses an order of the court is necessary?

Mr. Elliot: I hope the hon. Gentleman's question and the answer to it will call attention to the matter.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the complaints about serious delay in payment of grants for reconstruction of houses under the Rural Workers Housing Acts in the Western Isles; that, even after repairs are completed, grants are often delayed and suppliers of building material hesitate to grant supplies at long credit; and what action he will take to remedy these difficulties?

Mr. Elliot: I have received no complaint regarding delay in the payment of grants in respect of the reconstruction of houses under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in the Western Isles. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases which have come to his notice I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state what progress has been made with the building industry for supplementing or increasing the available labour for housing construction?

Mr. Elliot: A further meeting was held on 17th July of the Official Joint Sub-Committee of the Scottish National Joint Council for the Building Industry. I am glad to say that the committee unanimously agreed to regard the question of the acceleration of housing progress as a matter demanding urgent attention. It was agreed, therefore:
1. That a Joint Consultative Committee constituted of representatives of employers' and operatives' organisations and of Government departments shall be appointed. The general objective of this committee shall be to assist in attaining and ensuring the most expeditious and efficient means of completing the Government building programme and the housing programmes of local authorities in Scotland, while, at the same time, avoiding or minimising any disturbing effects upon the efficient organisation of the building industry and/or upon the normal industrial and commercial development on which its permanent welfare depends.
2. To recommend to the appropriate committees under the Scottish National Joint Council for the Building Industry to give sympathetic consideration to applications for overtime where necessity is proved;
3. That where it is proved in any district that there is a shortage of labour, the matter should be dealt with by the appropriate Apprenticeship Committee under the Scottish National Joint Council for the Building Industry, in consultation with the Joint Consultative Committee if necessary, and the augmentation, if any, should be governed by a general quota of one apprentice to three journeymen in respect of each craft.
It was further agreed to proceed at once with the setting up of the Joint Consultative Committee and to hold the first meeting at an early date.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing authorities have standardised rents under Section 47, Sub-section (5), of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935; how many have adopted a scheme of rebates for which discretionary power is given by the same Section; and the names of the authorities?

Mr. Elliot: Eleven local authorities have intimated that they have standardised rents and adopted schemes of rebates, namely, the county councils of East Lothian, Roxburgh and Stirling, and the town councils of Aberdeen, Denny, Duns, Grangemouth, Hawick, Kirkcaldy, Leslie and St. Andrews. In addition, Midlothian County Council have standardised rents but have not adopted a general scheme of rebates. Other authorities may have standardised rents and /or adopted schemes of rebates though they have not informed me of the fact.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of housing authorities who have intimated their intention of either ceasing building, or reducing the number of houses to be built, because of rising costs and/or inadequate subsidy, the names of the authorities and the number of houses involved?

Mr. Elliot: In addition to the 10 authorities mentioned in the answer given to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 23rd June, five authorities have intimated that they are either postponing further housing developments or reducing the number of houses to be built. These authorities are the town councils of Auchtermuchty, Culross, Inverurie and Pittenweem, and the


county council of Peebles. I regret that it is impossible to give the number of houses involved as the decisions in some of these cases do not refer to specific housing schemes but to further housing operations as a whole.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the 15 he has mentioned is the total number of the authorities in Scotland who have decided not to proceed with housing unless there is an increase in subsidy or a reduction in costs?

Mr. Elliot: These are the only ones that have intimated so to me.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the fact that there are even 15 which have indicated that they must stop house building in present conditions point to the necessity for more energy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, but the energy should be applied to completing the 25,000 under construction and the 13,000 which are not yet begun, rather than to new schemes.

MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (ADMISSIONS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many male and female persons, respectively, were received into mental institutions during each of the years 1930 to 1936, inclusive; how many of these persons so admitted were under 50 years of age, 50 and under 60, 60 and under 70, and over 70 years of age, respectively; and how many in each class were in receipt of widows' pensions and old age pensions, respectively, at the time of admission?

Mr. Elliot: The information desired in the first and second parts of the question will be communicated to the hon. and learned Member as soon as returns have been received from all the mental institutions regarding the age groups of persons admitted. The information desired in the last part of the question could only be obtained by examination of the records of the Department of Health, and this would involve an expenditure of time and trouble which does not seem justifiable.

Mr. Gibson: In addition to letting me have the information asked for in the first two parts of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman please circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as the matters are of public interest?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member had better put another question on the Paper.

DUNFERMLINE COLLEGE OF HYGIENE.

Miss Horsbrugh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students are attending the Dunfermline College of Hygiene arid Physical Education; how many of them are completing this year the three-years course and the one-year course, respectively; and what distinction in recognition by the Scottish Education Department is made between the students who have completed a three-years course and obtained the Chapter VI recognition and those who have completed the one-year course?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is 105. Of this number 25 have just completed the three-year course and 25 the one-year course. Both types receive the same recognition under the regulations, but it is a condition of admission to the shorter course that the student already holds a qualification under the regulations.

Miss Horsbrugh: Does the qualifying certificate state the extent of education in physical training that has been completed? If not, why are the same qualifications given to those who are taking a three-year course as to those who are taking a one-year course of instruction?

Mr. Elliot: Not only physical education, but capability to teach is in question.

Miss Horsbrugh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications were received this year for admission as students to the Dunfermline College of Hygiene and Physical Education for a three-years course; and how many were admitted?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is 80, and of this number 35 will be admitted at the beginning of the ensuing session.

SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.

Miss Horsbrugh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department of Health has been consulted concerning suitable accommodation in Scotland for Basque children; and whether, if refugees from any foreign country are to be accommodated in Scotland, suitable arrangements will be made for them in country districts rather than


in congested parts of the towns where the ratio of population to the acre is already considerably greater than accords with modern standards of health?

Mr. Elliot: The Department of Health has not been consulted on the question of finding accommodation in Scotland for Basque children, and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Miss Horsbrugh: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement as to the overcrowding in certain parts of the towns of Scotland that he knows to exist, in order that people who are arranging accommodation for these Basque children may arrange for them to go into the more depopulated areas of Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that question arises.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these children are going in small numbers, ranging from 25 to 1,000, and that many of them are being accommodated in homes and institutions all over the country, and therefore the addition to the population in any one of these overcrowded towns would not be serious?

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the consideration of remedies for the plight of Scottish poultry farmers; and when he will announce what the Government intend to do in this connection?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries?

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how his own reputation and that of the Government are suffering because of the delay in this matter?

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) persuade his friends not to oppose the Poultry Bill?

SPIKED RAILINGS.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in addition to the particular steps being taken by the Clydebank Town Council to prohibit spiked railings adjacent to dwelling houses, he will take up the matter with

all local authorities in Scotland to prevent the fitting of any more such railings and also to have existing ones removed wherever possible in view of their ugliness and the danger which they cause to life and limb?

Mr. Elliot: It is not the practice of local authorities generally to erect spiked railings in connection with housing schemes. With regard to specifications for such schemes I am prepared to withhold approval of any proposal for the erection of dangerous spiked railings. I am not satisfied on the information before me that general legislation is required on this subject.

IRISH LAMBS (IMPORTS).

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that an appreciable number of lambs are being imported from Northern Ireland to Scotland, where they are killed and the carcases marketed in Smithfield and, being of markedly inferior quality to Scottish lamb, are prejudicial to the Scottish trade; and whether he can take any action in this matter?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that for several years Irish lambs have been brought from Ireland to the south of Scotland from May to October for slaughter and consignment to London, but I am not aware that they are of inferior quality or that they affect prejudicially the Scottish export trade in lambs. If my hon. Friend has any information on that point, perhaps he could let me have it.

PALESTINE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission on Palestine consulted the Government before presenting a report which went outside their terms of reference?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The Royal Commission did not consult His Majesty's Government before presenting their report. Having regard to the last part of the terms of reference, I do not accept the suggestion that the Royal Commission went beyond their reference.

Mr. Mander: Is not the Prime Minister aware that Lord Peel himself admitted that they went outside their terms of


reference, and is there any precedent for a Royal Commission presenting a report without hearing any evidence on a matter which is outside their terms of reference and without referring to the Government?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

RESOLUTIONS, ETC., BY EITHER HOUSE.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he will accept the Motion for a Return, entitled "Resolutions, etc., by either House," standing in the name of the hon. Member for the North Division of Aberdeen?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The information required is contained, with other information of a similar character, in the "Index to the Statutory Rules and Orders in Force," of which the latest edition relates to 31st July, 1936. The return for which the hon. Member asks would involve a very large amount of labour, and I am satisfied that no useful object would be secured by it sufficient to justify the time and labour involved.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the powers of another place have been greatly strengthened by means of powers exercisable in the form of Resolutions given to them under Statutes, and would it not, therefore, serve a very useful purpose for the right hon. Gentleman to acquiesce in this Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the names of Members of the three parties in this House?

The Prime Minister: I think the information can be obtained by hon. Members in the document to which I have referred.

Mr. Attlee: Is there any real reason why a return of this sort, asked for by Members of the different parties in this House, should not be given? Is there any really great labour involved in getting it out?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am advised that there is.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it because such a return would serve no useful purpose, in the Prime Minister's view, or that it

would involve too much labour to prepare? Which is the actual reason?

The Prime Minister: The information can be obtained from the document to which I have referred the hon. Member, but I think the labour involved in getting it out would not serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is there any truth in the statement that the liberties and freedom of this House have been imperilled within the last six months owing to certain enactments that have taken place?

The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of it.

INDUSTRIAL POPULATION DISTRI BUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. Cary: asked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider the appointment of Sir Arthur Robinson as a member of the Royal Commission to inquire into the question of the geographical distribution of the industrial population in order that he may be left free to devote his entire energies to the Supply Board, of which he has been Chairman since 1935?

The Prime Minister: No. Sir. I invited Sir Arthur Robinson to serve on this Commission because in his present post he is obtaining experience of some of the Defence aspects of the problem remitted to the Commission, having already acquired much experience in other aspects during long service at the Ministry of Health. I made it clear to Sir Arthur that the invitation was on the condition that the work must not involve undue strain inconsistent with the proper performance of his functions as Chairman of the Supply Board, and the appointment has been made on this understanding.

CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS (EX- SERVICE MEN).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Chancellor of of the Exchequer whether when he is considering the matter of an inquiry into the pension claims of ex-service Civil Servants employed in a clerical capacity, he will also consider the similar claims of ex-service Civil Servants employed on technical duties, such as laboratory assistants, etc.?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the men concerned in clerical, administrative, and technical duties now have to their credit four years' war service and 18 years' service as Civil Servants, making a total of 22 years' service, and that many of them are anxious as to their future as they will have to retire shortly?

Sir J. Simon: All relevant factors will he borne in mind.

IN-SHORE FISHERMEN (FUEL OIL).

Viscountess Astor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the plight of the in-shore fishermen, due, among other things, to the rise in the price of their fuel oil, he will consider granting a further rebate of 1d. per gallon in the tax they pay on that oil?

Sir J. Simon: By Section 2 (8) of the Finance Act, 1928, relief from the whole of the duty is already allowable in respect of oil used by owners of registered fishing boats; my Noble Friend will, therefore, be glad to appreciate that no further rebate remains to be given in these cases.

Viscountess Astor: If that is so, could my right hon. Friend consider some other means of saving this very important section of the population, especially in these days, when we are going to need all the seamen possible? Could he provide some other way of helping them?

Sir J. Simon: That is another question.

Mr. Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many instances this rebate is not obtainable by the men because of the wording of the regulations as they stand at present; is he further aware that representations to this effect have been made both to the Treasury and to the Board of Trade; and will he see whether perhaps something could not be done to make this rebate, which is supposedly allowed to fishermen, actually available to them?

Sir J. Simon: The words of the Act of Parliament governing this arrangement are contained in Section 2, Subsection (8) of the Finance Act, 1928, and there is no doubt as to what they say.

If the matter was to go farther, it would require new legislation.

Mr. Charles Williams: Will my right hon. Friend inquire into the matter, as there is a real grievance and see whether the Act is being administered fairly according to the Act itself?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, certainly.

MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (VISITORS).

Mr. Markham: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any information is available as to the proportion of visitors to national museums and art galleries who come from the Dominions or foreign countries?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I regret that no information is available.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the number of passengers into Great Britain from the Irish Free State during the past five years exceeded the outflow of passengers by over 70,000; whether he has information how many propose to settle in Great Britain; and what will be the status of citizens of the Irish Free State when the proposed revision of the Constitution approved by the recent plebiscite is enacted in the Irish Free State?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No information is available regarding the intentions of the persons concerned as to settling in this country, but judging from experience it would appear that many of them intend after a period in this country to return to the Irish Free State. As regards the last part of the question, the proposed revision of the Constitution had a majority at the recent plebiscite, but it has not yet come into force. In the present circumstances it would be premature for me to make any statement, but I may observe that the Constitution does not contain any new provision affecting the status of citizens of the Irish Free State.

Mr. Lambert: As Ireland is gradually getting poorer and the influx of Irishmen from the Irish Free State into this country is greater, should not steps be taken in order to ascertain the situation?

Mr. MacDonald: I think the House knows that a departmental inquiry into immigration from the Irish Free State is taking place now. Until that inquiry is completed I can make no further statement on the matter.

Mr. Lambert: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect the report of that inquiry?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not sure whether the committee will present a formal report. They will report to me the result of their inquiry, and as soon as I have heard what the committee or the officials have got to say, I shall consider the matter and shall be perfectly prepared to answer questions in the House on it. I cannot say when that inquiry will have been completed.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the situation in China?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): There is at the moment little that I can add to the information which I gave the House last night. I have not yet received the terms of the reply made yesterday by the Chinese Government to the representations which, as I informed the House last night, were made on 17th July by the Japanese representative in Nanking. In the meanwhile I have received confirmation of the issue by General Chiang Kai-shek at Kuling of a declaration in terms which have already been published here. His

Majesty's Government are continuing to keep in close touch at every stage with the other Governments principally concerned.

Mr. Thorne: Is there any truth in the statement which appears in the papers this morning to the effect that the Japanese have bombarded one of the Chinese towns?

Mr. Eden: I have no information about that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take if the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended, and also what business it is proposed to take on Friday?

The Prime Minister: The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended in order to obtain the first four Orders on the Paper. I hope that this business will be obtained without asking the House to sit very late.

On Friday, in addition to the Report and Third Reading of the Coal (Registration of Ownership) Bill, [Lords], which has already been announced for that day, we shall further consider the Milk (Amendment) Bill, and take the Motion to approve the Amendments of the Milk Marketing Scheme. The remainder of the sitting will be available for the Lords Amendments to the Marriage Bill, the Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Bill, and the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Bill, all of which are Private Members' Bills.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 117.

Division No. 297.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Albery, Sir Irving
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bull, B. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bernays, R. H.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bird, Sir R. B.
Carver, Major W. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Blair, Sir R.
Cary, R. A.


Assheton, R.
Bossom, A. C.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brass, Sir W.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Channon, H.




Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Christie, J. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Porritt, R. W.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hepworth, J.
Radford, E. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.
Higgs, W. F.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Holmes, J. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cox, H. B. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Critchley, A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crooke, J. S.
Hunter, T.
Rowlands, G.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Cross, R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crossley, A. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Culverwell, C. T.
Joel, D. J. B.
Salt, E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Dawson, Sir P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Savery, Sir Servington


De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shakespeare, G. H.


De la Bère, R.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Denville, Alfred
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Doland, G. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Donner, P. W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lees-Jones, J.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Drewe, C.
Leigh, Sir J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Levy, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Duggan, H. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dunglass, Lord
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Lloyd, G. W.
Storey, S.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ellis, Sir G.
Lyons, A. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Elliston, Capt. G. S
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tate, Mavis C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, J. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Magnay, T.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Everard, W. L.
Maitland, A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Turton, R. H.


Findlay, Sir E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Fleming, E. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Furness, S. N.
Marsden, Commander A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Moreing, A. C.
Wells, S. R.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Munro, P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T.(Hitchin)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, R. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wise, A. R.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Peake, O.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Guy, J. C. M.
Peat, C. U.



Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Petherick, M.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward and Major Sir Georǵe Davies.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pilkington, R.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Batey, J. Cove, W. G.
Cove, W. G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ballenger, F. J.
Daggar, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Day, H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Buchanan, G.
Dobbie, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burke, W. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Banfield, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Ede, J. C.


Barnes, A. J.
Chater, D.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)







Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leonard, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leslie, J. R.
Sexton. T. M.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, E.


Frankel, D.
Lunn, W.
Short, A.


Gallacher, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Silverman, S. S.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McEntee, V. La T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, N.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Grenfell, D. R.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mander, G. le M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mathers, G.
Stephen, C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Montague, F.
Thorne, W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Tinker, J. J.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Hollins, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Walker, J.


Jagger, J.
Owen, Major G.
Watson, W. McL.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parker, J.
Westwood, J.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
White, H. Graham


Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Pritt, D. N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)



Lawson, J. J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lee, F.
Sanders, W. S.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRIDLINGTON) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third Time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GUILDFORD) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third Time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SELBY) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH EAST ESSEX JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (TYNEMOUTH) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Coatbridge Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—

Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Whitehaven Harbour Bill [Lords],

Woodhall Spa Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to the Ferguson Bequest Fund." [Ferguson Bequest Fund Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to the Royal Samaritan


Hospital for Women Glasgow." [Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women, Glasgow Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company." [Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

ROYAL SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN, GLASGOW ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think the House will require a long explanation of the simple Bill which I bring before it this afternoon. The Bill is rendered necessary by the London Naval Treaty, 1936, and is similar to previous Bills which have been passed in connection with treaties such as the Washington Treaty of 1922 and the London Naval Treaty of 1930. Perhaps it would be well that I should refer to the terms of the Treaty, although hon. Members may be familiar with them. It was concluded more than a year ago, and was set forth in a White Paper at the time. In the first place, I had better say something of the genesis of the Treaty. The previous Treaty, of 1930, concluded by the Labour Government, automatically came to an end on 31st December, 1936, and steps have been taken to supplement it by another Treaty.
The Powers assembled, and one of the first demands that were made was that of the Japanese Government, who wished their rights to be recognised to have a Navy with a total tonnage equal to that of the Navy of the United Kingdom and that of the United States. Those two Powers were unable to meet Japan on that point, and to the universal regret Japan thereupon withdrew from the Conference. The Powers naturally realised how very much the withdrawal of Japan would weaken the efficacy of any agreement subsequently come to, but nevertheless they decided to go on with the Conference to conclude the Treaty which was eventually completed. The provisions contained in that Treaty are three: first, the qualitative limitation of armaments; second, exchange of information with regard to construction programmes; third, clauses safeguarding the interests of Powers who subsequently might find themselves in a position in which they could no longer, having regard to national security, be bound by the terms of the Treaty.
First of all, I will deal with the Clauses which limit the quality of the various ships of the various fleets. The first and most important apply to capital ships, which are limited to 35,000 tons and guns of 16 inches. It was originally hoped, as will be seen by the terms of the treaty, to secure a limitation of big guns to the extent of 14 inches, but it was provided that if any of the Washington Powers gave notice before April of the present year that they were unable to accept the 14-inch limit, the 16-inch limit would be the one generally accepted. In March of this year Japan announced that she could not be bound by that 14-inch provision, and more recently the United States has announced her intention reluctantly of building ships with 16-inch guns. There is a further important limitation with regard to capital ships, and that is that none shall be built of less than 17,500 tons. That provision was put in in order to secure that there should be a zone of non-construction from 8,000 tons upwards to 17,500 tons, to guard against the possibility of some Power building super cruisers in the guise of small capital ships.
That brings me to the next limitation which affects cruisers. By the terms of the treaty no category "A" cruisers, that is to say, cruisers carrying 8-inch guns, shall be built during the operation of the treaty; further, no cruisers of sub-category "B," carrying 6-inch guns or less, above 8,000 tons, will be constructed during that year. Further limitations apply to aircraft carriers, the size of which is reduced from 27,000 to 23,000 tons, and the size of guns reduced from 8 inches to 6 inches. Submarines remain limited to 2,000 tons. His Majesty's Government renewed their efforts at this conference to secure the general abolition of submarines, but they were unable to obtain the consent of other Powers to their proposal.
With regard to the provision which ensures the advance notification and exchange of information, advance notification is a new feature in a naval treaty and very great importance is attached to it. It may be suggested that Powers when they undertake to give this full information will not be bound by the provision and may hold back some of their plans, but we must assume in this Treaty that nations will behave honourably and


observe it; otherwise it becomes a waste of time to conclude treaties at all. The whole of social intercourse becomes impossible unless we assume that people mean what they say and intend to abide by the promises which they make. The actual terms of the exchange of information are that every nation at the beginning of each year shall announce its programme for the year ensuing. The initiation of that programme shall not commence until four months after the announcement has been made. They shall abide by the programme for the remainder of the year, and they shall give full information with regard to the dimensions, speed and guns of every ship that is laid down.
The importance of this provision is that it seeks to strike at two of the greatest dangers in international affairs—the dangers which come from suspicion and from surprise. If we could eliminate suspicion in international affairs, we should have gone far to eliminate war, and in so far as we can even diminish it we are proceeding in the right direction. Many events, many steps taken by nations, simply because they are taken without warning, without any previous announcement, sometimes even during periods of comparative quiet and even during a week-end—such events cause far greater consternation and far greater alarm among the nations than if exactly the same thing were done after a preliminary announcement, after calm discussion and after full explanation was given.
This Treaty applies only to certain Powers; so far it only spreads to a certain extent the area over which we shall in future have information; but in so far as any of that vast area of unknown territory can be mapped and charted, so far a definite advance has been made against that miasma of suspicion out of which emerge so many disasters of the modern world.
The third provision of this Clause refers to the possibility which may arise in which a nation will find itself unable, for perfectly sound and justifiable reasons, to abide by the terms of the Treaty. It is obviously a good thing to make such a provision in the Treaty. If circumstances arise which make it really impossible for Powers to abide by an undertaking, it is much better than that they should make an excuse and break the Treaty that pro-

vision should be made in the Treaty itself for any circumstance arising which will make it inevitable for them no longer to be bound by the terms. The first of these circumstances is that a nation finds itself at war. One can hardly expect a nation fighting for its life to be bound by the terms of a treaty entered into in days of peace, when the horizon seems fraught with no imminent danger. Secondly, if a Power that is no party to this Treaty builds armaments which are not in conformity with its terms, then those Powers which have signed the Treaty shall, again after announcement and delay, have the right to depart from the provisions of the Treaty. Thirdly, if new circumstances arise which any Power considers endanger its national security, that Power again may, after consultation with the other signatories, after announcement and delay, consider itself no longer bound by all the terms of the Treaty.
The Treaty has now been ratified by the United States and by France, and it is high time that this country, which took the lead in bringing the Treaty about, should also ratify it. I will explain the reasons for the delay. Since the Treaty was signed it was considered desirable, if possible, to obtain the adherence to it of two other naval Powers, Russia and Germany (which has once again emerged as a naval Power in Europe). When those countries were approached they both declared their willingness to enter into negotiations. Negotiations have been carried on bilaterally between this country and Germany, and between this country and the Soviet Republic, and have at last reached their conclusion, and treaties both with the Soviet Government and with Germany were signed at the Foreign Office last Saturday morning. There are certain conditions in the terms of those treaties, now in the hands of hon. Members, which do not follow word for word the terms of the London Naval Treaty. I had better explain the reasons for the slight differences. The Soviet Government, for instance, pointed out that they have peculiar responsibilities which do not apply to other Powers in the same degree in the Far East, and as Japan is no party to the Treaty and is under no obligation to give information with regard to her naval preparations, it was considered only just by the other Powers that the Soviet Government, in so far as her fleet in the Far East was concerned,


should be absolved from delivering information of its size and construction to other Powers.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does that apply only to shipbuilding in Far Eastern ports?

Mr. Cooper: It is limited to those ships which they keep in the East. Anything they build in Europe they notify in the usual way. It applies to ships built and kept for use in the Far East.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can they not send ships from European waters to the Far East?

Mr. Cooper: About ships that are built in European waters we shall have full information. The Soviet Government further made a stipulation with regard to the construction of guns in her cruisers. She decided some time ago to equip these cruisers with 7·1.-inch guns, and she is not in a position now to switch over to the construction of 6-inch guns; she has not the necessary plant and apparatus. Therefore, it has been agreed that she shall have the right to construct a limited number of these cruisers with 7·1-inch guns. The maximum number of such cruisers which it is contemplated they will build is seven, but it is hoped that Russia will not find it necessary to build the entire number.
So far as the German Government are concerned, the signing of this treaty was accompanied by an exchange of Notes in order to make it perfectly plain that the right of the German Government to build five 10,000-ton cruisers, which is granted to her by the quantitative Article in the Anglo-German Treaty, is not in any way affected by this treaty. Germany has, in fact, laid down only three of those cruisers and intended to observe a cruiser holiday by abstaining from building the remaining two cruisers. So far as we are aware it is not her intention to lay down those additional 10,000-ton cruisers. But she has a right to do so, which is acknowledged by the terms of the exchange of Notes. Finally, there is the Anglo-German declaration, which is annexed to the new treaty, and in which the opportunity of the negotiations with Germany is taken to settle certain small matters arising out of the 1935 Treaty.
So much for the terms of the various Treaties. I think a very few words are necessary about the Bill which gives effect

to the new Treaty. Its only object is to give His Majesty's Government the powers required to carry out the terms of the Treaty, and it provides that, before the construction or adaptation of any ships for the purposes of war, the Admiralty shall be supplied with full particulars of the work contemplated. Power is also taken to enter any shipyard for the purpose of obtaining information where such construction is in progress. It would be easy to exaggerate the importance of these Treaties, and I have no intention of doing so; but when we reflect upon how disappointing and barren have been the results of the long repeated and sincere negotiations which have been from time to time entered into with a view to obtaining some agreed measure of disarmament, and when we reflect upon the atmosphere of pessimism which has gradually been created as to the possibility of international agreement, whether at Geneva or elsewhere, it is something, I think, upon which we may congratulate ourselves that five of the great Powers of the world are able to come to an agreement upon such an important subject as naval construction.
Hon. Members will, of course, be very conscious of the weakness of the present position. The strength of a chain is its weakest link, and the weak link in this case is the fact that two great naval Powers are not signatories of the Treaty. I will say a word or two about each of them. During the negotiations for the Treaty, the representative of Italy took part from beginning to end, and there was no participator in the negotiations who was more helpful or did more towards the conclusion of the agreement than the Italian representative. Unfortunately, when the time came for signature, the Italian Government were unable to sign. At that time Great Britain and France were actively employed with the policy of sanctions against Italy. We need not revive that old controversy now, but we can hardly be surprised and can hardly criticise the Italian Government for refraining from concluding a treaty with France and Great Britain at that particular period. But we do at least know that, when the Treaty was concluded, the Italian Government had no substantial objection to it, and we can at least hope that, when it has been ratified by the Powers concerned, the Italian Government will see their way to adhere to it or to


form a separate agreement with us as Germany and Soviet Russia have done.
With regard to Japan, the position is admittedly more difficult, but there is no reason to suppose that Japan will do anything to make it impossible for the other Powers to keep to the pledges which they have given under the Treaty. After all, Japan left the Conference on the question of quantity, and not on the question of quality. The question of total tonnage, upon which the negotiations with Japan were abandoned, and other quantitative questions, are not dealt with in any way in the present Treaty, and Japan has given, through her responsible statesmen, repeated assurances that she has no intention of starting a competition in naval armaments. I think we really can rely to some extent upon the sound sense of a highly intelligent people not to initiate wilfully another competition and race in armaments, with all the vast and ruinous expenditure which it must impose upon all the parties to it—

Mr. Alexander: While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the quantitative issue, could he say a word or two at this stage about the 16-inch guns which have been adopted?

Mr. Churchill: Eighteen-inch.

Mr. Cooper: We have no information with regard to anything larger than the 16-inch gun.

Mr. Churchill: In Japan?

Mr. Cooper: So far as we have gone at the present time, Japan has said that she cannot be bound by any undertaking not to construct ships with 16-inch guns. Exactly what she is constructing at the present time I have no information to give to the House, but, as I say, I cannot think that she will wilfully start such a ruinous competition in armaments, which cannot be to her advantage any more than to that of any other Power.

Mr. Churchill: Is it or is it not a fact that the United States have decided to adopt 16-inch guns in consequence of the prospect of the Japanese advancing to that or to a higher figure?

Mr. Cooper: Yes. I have already stated that the United States Government have announced that they reluctantly consider themselves compelled to adopt the 16-inch gun.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is not that evidence that the United States are convinced that Japan is constructing 16-inch guns?

Mr. Cooper: I think we may be fairly satisfied that Japan is constructing 16-inch guns, but we have no information that they are constructing anything larger. That is all I said. I might perhaps refer to the fact, which I consider a fortunate augury, that there is now going to Japan as our Ambassador Sir Robert Craigie, a member of the Foreign Office, who has done more than anyone else to bring these Treaties to a successful conclusion.
I do not wish to make any exaggerated claims for the importance of the agreements which this Bill seeks to implement, but they do represent something solid and practicable. If it is not the end towards which we are all striving, it is at any rate something in the nature of a beginning, a starting point, a foundation. It keeps alive in the world the spirit of co-operation and of communication between nations on the question of armaments. Although many of us would desire something better and more complete, something farther-reaching, I submit that this certainty is very much better than nothing at all. It has proved the possibility, even in these days, of great Powers finding themselves able to agree upon a matter so vital to national security as naval armaments, and it does provide a fund of encouragement which is sorely needed now, and a basis of hope.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I think it is incumbent upon me to say, in the first place, that we hope the First Lord will be happy and will be successful from the departmental point of view in the new Ministry for which this afternoon he speaks, I think, for the first time in an important sense. He is making his bow, if I may so say, in the important department of naval affairs, in circumstances which perhaps are not very favourable for him. He has to introduce a Bill to amend the Washington Treaty provisions, in order to ratify the London Naval Treaty of 1936, for which he was in no sense responsible, and which he partly damped down, towards the end of his speech, by saying that perhaps it would be possible to exaggerate the importance of the


Treaty. I can well imagine that he does not find it easy to have to make his bow in a Debate which has to be opened in that sense.
I cannot help feeling that perhaps the only good thing that can be said about the Treaty we are discussing this afternoon is that it does show, on the part of those more directly in charge of naval policy and international negotiations, a desire to keep as far as possible in touch and in continuous negotiation with other Powers with a view to limiting the mischief that may be done by an armaments race. But when one comes to contemplate the actual details of the Treaty which the First Lord has dispassionately and coldly laid before the House in his very fair summary, one cannot help feeling that it is mostly paper, and that it means very little.
It would be wrong for us to oppose the ratification of the Treaty, if only for the reason that the good faith of the British Government in this matter may be demonstrated to other Powers, but, when one has said that, it would be a great mistake to allow this Treaty to go through without pointing out that it is in vast contrast to what was accomplished, in the previous period since the War, in the direct and effective limitation of naval armaments, to the great advantage of saving money to all the States concerned, and thereby improving the social conditions of the peoples within those States and very definitely preventing that atmosphere of almost immediate fear of the outbreak of war into which we have been launched in the last year or two. I think we are entitled, therefore, to say to the Government that, whatever there may be to be commended in the re-opening and continuing of negotiations with regard to the limitation of naval armaments, we can hardly compliment them upon the success they have secured in this particular connection. I think we are entitled to call attention to the fact that their own weak and inept foreign policy in the last few years is as much responsible as any other single cause for the position in which we find ourselves to-day.
Let me remind the House that, if you can get effective armaments limitation of the kind that was secured in the Washington Treaty of 1922 and in the London Treaty of 1930, there is a very substan-

tial advantage in a financial sense. In the years from 1923 to 1934, the average naval expenditure—sometimes it was a little more, sometimes a little less—was round about £55,000,000 a year. It was done for that sum, although in the meantime we built the two largest and most expensive battleships we had ever built, the "Nelson" and the "Rodney"; although in that period we built 15 "County" class cruisers, averaging nearly 10,000 tons and armed with 8-inch guns; although in the same period we spent vast sums on modernising and remodelling our capital ships, and also started very effectively the replacement of our 6-inch gun cruisers as a result of the 1930 Treaty. I look at the situation today, bearing in mind what was done in those years, and I see that we are spending, not £55,000,000, but £105,000,000 this year, with the prospect of spending much more in the next three or four years, on the Navy alone. I think that is the measure of the melancholy position at which we have arrived by the failure to maintain that recognition of the effectiveness of quantitative limitation of naval armaments.
If one could be sure that the expenditure of that increased sum on armaments would actually provide the British Commonwealth and those with whom we have covenant commitments under the League with perfect security, I do not believe any of us would wish to withhold the money, but that is not what is happening with this Treaty. Mark what is happening. If you take the ratio of expense of ourselves and the other Powers in the last few years, you will see how steadily our expenditure has moved with theirs. At this moment we are spending £105,000,000 a year on naval armaments. The total expenditure of ourselves plus the United States, Japan, France, Germany and Italy is £354,000,000 this year. In other words, we are spending just about a third of what the other six Powers are spending. If we go three years back, those Powers were spending £191,000,000 and our share was £55,000,000—roughly a third. Twenty-five years ago, a period about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will know a good deal, the six Powers were spending £127,000,000, of which our share was £44,000,000—about a third. We have heard so much in the past, whenever there has been an effective reduction of British armaments by international agreement,


about sacrificing our position, that it is very interesting to note, as we go back over history, that all the way through we have very steadily spent just about a third of the naval expenditure of the six principal Powers, never very much more and never very much less.
Look again at the first figure I mentioned, £354,000,000, of which we are spending nearly a third. How much more security does that give us? I hope the gallant Admiral the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) may be able to explain it. All the other naval Powers are building at the same rate and, if you look at the provisions of this Treaty, it is not worth very much more than the paper it is written on. I am obliged to the First Lord for the fair way in which he dealt with this. He stressed, I think, four separate points of escape by the Powers from the obligations that they entered into under the Treaty. They can escape in respect of any position of war in which they find themselves, and I think they can escape also under Articles 6, 25 and 26. Article 26 is so wide as to render it quite clear that, if a Power is bent upon doing what it likes in the matter, there is nothing to hold it whatever.
If the requirements of the national security of either Contracting Government should, in the opinion of that Government, be materially affected by any change of circumstances, other than those provided for in Articles 24 and 25 of the present Agreement, such Contracting Government shall have the right to depart for the current year from its Annual Programmes of construction and declarations of acquisition. The amount of construction by either Contracting Government, within the limitations and restrictions thereof, shall not, however, constitute a change of circumstances for the purposes of the present Article.
Having regard to the other parts of the Treaty, all you have to do is to notify that in your view the circumstances are so changed that you feel bound to make use of the escape. Therefore, every one of the principal naval Powers now can, subject to the exchange of this gentlemanly class of information, do almost what it likes. Indeed, I am rather interested to think of the value that has been placed in some quarters upon this provision in the Treaties. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last night, when he was being pressed in all parts of the House for certain information with regard to armaments in Spain,

some of them supposed to be a threat to Gibraltar, said it was not in the public interest to let us know in the House either what was the calibre or type of guns set up by the enemy or what were the actual detailed measures we were taking in order to counteract the threat. The main feature upon which we are asked to commend this Treaty is that it is in the public interest to exchange information as to how much you are going to exceed your naval programme this year over what it was last year. I commend to the Noble Lord to study the contrast between what he said last night—I do not know whether he "mugged" it up—to use his classic language—or not—and the commended principle given to us in the exchange of information in this Treaty. I, therefore, see no very substantial value in the Treaty at all.
I want to ask one or two questions, and possibly to make one or two suggestions. The First Lord said a word or two at our request about what is happening over the 16-inch gun. From time to time lately questions have been asked as to whether it would be the intention of the British Admiralty to follow the Japanese in their policy of mounting 16-inch guns in capital ships. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has already drawn attention to the fact that the United States is following suit. I am well aware that some naval authorities in the House think it would not be wise to follow in this programme. It may be argued that, if you get the right content in your gun charge, you will have no difference in your range, and there will be no difference in your angle of fire if you maintain the 14-inch instead of the 16-inch gun.
Speaking for myself, if the other Powers follow each other in mounting guns capable of firing these 16-inch shells there is something even more to consider than either the actual range or the actual angle of hitting, and that is the morale of your personnel. I am not confining that by any means to the lower deck. It applies to all ranks. There is a vast difference, it seems to me, in the feeling of the men who are likely to serve guns of that kind if they are to fight with weapons of equal calibre and hitting power to those that are massed against them. Certainly it is no part of any policy that I have ever wished to support that the men whom we send to sea should


be less well equipped to do their service to their country than may be the position with those with whom they may be brought into conflict. I think we ought to have something more from the Admiralty as to their actual policy in this connection. I deprecate entirely, with the First Lord, that any one of the Powers who are, or ought to be, signatories to this Treaty should begin to pursue a qualitative expansion, but, if that happens, I think we ought to see that our men, at any rate, are equipped with equally potent weapons of defence to those that are brought against them.
That leads me to another point in regard to capital ships. Although I have been very quiet about the general problem of the bomb versus the battleship, I have not been at all satisfied that the whole thing has been exhaustively pursued. I have felt in my bones that any fleet must have something upon which its fighting units may retire for protection and for maintaining the control of the seas by the fleet. What I feel is that just now, in view of the situation which arouses so much of the pessimism referred to by the First Lord, we ought not to rest content with saying, "If you build a 35,000 ton battleship and arm it with 16-inch guns, we will just follow it ton for ton and gun for gun." That is not the only policy to adopt. We have a very great reserve in this country of ours in sea experience, in engineering and in technical training and in research experience as well, and I should have thought that probably a more effective answer to the situation which seems likely to arise in this qualitative sphere of naval armaments would be for us to concentrate upon matching for ourselves the threat that will arise of a big growth in capital ships.
It is not sufficient merely to put capital ship against capital ship. We hear a great deal about the new danger from the air to the battleship. We have seen that the Admiralty has at least spent a great deal of time and money, and spent it with some success, in the last nine or ten years in providing expanded means of defence of the capital ship against the air, and I willingly pay tribute to what has been accomplished for the British Fleet from that point of view. But there are other ways in which research might be effective, to see what the antidote to this enormous growth of the capital ship and the large gun should be. I suggest

that if you find other means, not merely from the tir but from beneath the water, of counteracting the effect of the capital ship, and if you tell the world that you have the antidote, you will do far more to stop this suicidal growth and this race in armaments than merely by saying, "We propose to follow you. We shall build ton for ton and mount gun for gun." I am not suggesting that we should not give our own men adequate protection in the meantime, but we should have a great deal more research in that connection.
I should also like to ask about the German and the Russian agreements which have just been arrived at. I entirely share the feelings that have been expressed from our benches that some special provision had to be made for the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in view of their exceedingly difficult position in the Far East, as Japan is not a party to the Treaty, but it is a curious situation that arises in which you have a Power, however friendly, brought into an agreement with a twofold naval position, that is to say, it has one programme which is under the Treaty to be open to the light of day, and another to be entirely secret. I am quite willing to concede that some special allowance ought to be made for the Russian position in relation to Japan. I hope it is not then going to be argued, say, next year on the Naval Estimates, or perhaps the year after, that Japan says that because of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1937, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics building expands their navy in the Far East, and Japan decides to increase her fleet; and that, therefore, because Japan is increasing, Great Britain and the United States also should decide to increase theirs. There you have just the same old race all over again.
I should like to have from the First Lord a little more information as to the programme, as far as it is known up to date, of the Russian building in the Far East. It is difficult enough, but the technical position of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics places her in a somewhat different position from somebody else. I think that it is always a pity in this armament question when you have new categories of ships being introduced. Probably we never made a greater mistake—I do not know what the right


hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping would say about it—when we seemed to introduce a new ship before the War which led to the pre-war race. And to have sandwiched in between the 6-inch "B" category class cruiser and the 8-inch " A" class cruiser, a new series of 7-inch gun cruisers is exceedingly difficult, because whoever has to match the 7-inch gun cruiser of the Soviet system will have to have a superior gun under the Treaty than that. Of course, I recognise that, as far as the written word goes, Germany has been reasonable in saying that she will not for the present lay down the two additional category "A" cruisers that she would have been entitled to do under what I am reminded was not a public agreement, but a secret agreement apparently between this country and the German Admiralty in July, 1935. At the same time, I shall be glad to know whether it is proposed to submit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that there should be, as soon as may be—and I recognise their technical difficulties—a reversion from the special category of 7-inch gun ships to the actual qualitative limitations which are applied by the Treaty to all other Powers, to light surface vessels, category "A," "B" and "C" cruisers. It would then be very much more easy to arrange our relative strength.
I do not think that it is worth delaying the House very much longer on this matter from our side. As I say, we shall not oppose the ratification of the Treaty, because there is so very little in it. I think that it is true to say that at the moment the naval race is on, and that the naval race is likely to continue for all the words which are written in this agreement, unless this country, and certain other countries as well, will quickly change their foreign policy. I do beg of the Government that on this somewhat meancholy occasion of attending what are really the funeral rites of the limitation treaties, the effective limitation treaties of Washington and of London, and having nothing to put in their places but this string of words of the exchange of opinion, that they will see that what is really needed is to change their attitude to the whole foreign situation. Go all out for rehabilitating the League and the support of the Covenant, of Article 16, and whatever you do in the way of armament,

have it on the collective basis to implement the real obligations of the nation under these Articles of the League. If you want to make it plain to the world that you and other important Powers in the world are united in such a League policy as that, then, I believe, you may once more get back to the basis upon which we found ourselves a few years ago in which we were not only able to negotiate but actually to enter into treaties which were effective in limiting armaments.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I too join with the right hon. Gentleman in offering my congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon his appointment to one of the four or five great key offices of the State, and to express to him—I have known him for so many years—not only my good wishes for his success, but my confidence that his abilities will be found of distinguished service to the country in his new office. The matter which we have to discuss tonight has been thrust upon us at rather short notice. It is quite true that we are familiar with the 1935 Treaty, but the important Russian and German papers, which are very bulky and very technical, were only in the Vote Office at seven o'clock last night, and it is rather severe that Members whose duty it is to follow and take an interest in these matters should not have a little longer notice of the fact. However, as the Session is drawing to its close some of this telescoping probably is necessary, but these are very large and complex matters, and it is much better that publication of matters of interest to the British Government should be in the Vote Office at least a week, if it is possible, before the House is asked to adopt them. But I bring that forward in no captious spirit, because on the whole I have very little to say against this arrangement, as we now see it, and, having regard to all that has gone before, something to say in its favour.
I have always been an opponent of these naval treaties, except the Treaty of Washington after the Great War which was a Treaty for which I was partly responsible. But I have always been the opponent of the subsequent naval arrangements, particularly the Treaty of London, which inflicts an immense amount of inconvenience and injury upon the whole naval structure of our country, although I


must in fairness say that it has, in the course of its working, ended the feeling of rivalry and friction which formerly existed with the United States. But judged from the point of view of the structure and formation of the British Navy, all these agreements have been very much to our disadvantage. I did not like the Anglo-German Treaty of 1935 and thought that it was a very unfortunate moment to bring it forward. It seemed to me that we then prematurely conceded a number of points which might well have been the subject of broader discussions than those into which any one Power should enter. However, that Treaty has become the law between the two great countries, and these agreements which we now have are supplementary to it, and explanatory of it.
I feel less critical of them for the very reason which has been opened to the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I admire their elasticity. I welcome the multiplicity of bolt-holes, of emergency exits, escalators and parachutes which are provided at every quarter and in every direction, because, when all is said and done, in these matters of such technique and complexity, it is very dangerous to be bound too tightly. It is far better to trust to general agreement on principles and to good faith and a friendly desire to give honourable effect to these agreements. But, broadly speaking, my view is that the injury done to the Royal Navy by these many arrangements, all at the expense of our naval freedom and initiative, is less in the set of papers now before us than in any before, and the final arrangements in respect of the Anglo-German agreements are a very definite improvement upon the original agreement.
I should like to remind the House that I repeatedly pointed out the great flaw in the Anglo-German agreement of 1935, namely, that it made no provision for our retaining our old vessels, and all our old ships were amalgamated for the purposes of the percentage with our newer ships, against which the German navy would be entitled to build entirely new vessels. I pointed out how much that harmed us. My hon. Friend and other Members will remember, in the first place, that we being the leading naval Power in Europe and the equal naval Power with the United States in the whole world, have a very large reserve

which we can accumulate. We had a very great reserve before the War in material, which proved of very high value. In the second place we have reserves of technicians and of seafaring population and of sea experience in this country, which enable us to bring that material reserve into some reality perhaps more reality than some other nations could do who have rather recently started navies, and it is not right that we should be asked to give that all up.
Up to the present moment we have been in a difficult situation, when a ship has come to the end of its prime activity, of deciding whether we will cast it away and lose it for ever or whether, by keeping it on the list, we will open to the other party to this arrangement the right to build 35 per cent. of its tonnage. I am very glad indeed that that oversight in the Treaty of 1935 has been remedied, and let me say that I consider that the Germans, in meeting us upon the point, have shown their very sincere desire to work in naval matters with us upon a fair and square basis. It is a matter of great importance that we should be able to keep our old ships and not be clogged by that danger.
Then there is another aspect in which also, I think, we have no reason to complain of the attitude which the German Government have taken. I am talking now of what are called sub-category "A" cruisers. Sub-category "A" cruisers are 10,000 ton, 8-inch gun cruisers. That is the type which arose at the Washington Conference 18 years ago. We built a great many of these in the early days, three, four and five a year, and the Americans gradually became concerned and raised the question. There was a considerable controversy, as the result of which we have given up building any more of these cruisers, and now as the result of another agreement entered into after the last General Election, we have undertaken not to build any more of these 8-inch gun 10,000 ton cruisers until 1943. These are the most powerful cruisers which exist or which are contemplated at the present time, apart from the capital ships.
I should like to point out how very much we have suffered by the course which has been followed. In the first place, all these early cruisers that we built are very inferior in protection and


in other qualities to the type of 10,000 ton cruiser which can be built now. The gallant Admiral the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir R. Keyes) will bear me out in that. We have a considerable number of what are called subcategory "A" cruisers but they in no way compare with the latest construction of sub-category "A" cruisers in the United States—not that we have any anxiety about what the United States build, but rather the contrary—and they will not compare with the sub-category "A" cruisers which will be built and are building now by Germany.
Germany has the right to build five of these cruisers, while we are forbidden by the arrangements we have made to build any until 1943. Therefore, if Germany exercises her right to build the whole of the five cruisers under the Agreement, she will have five cruisers which will be superior to any cruisers we have in existence and which will be capable of meeting in a single ship action and fighting at great advantage any cruisers which the British Navy possesses or will be allowed to construct until 1943. Five cruisers is a great many. There were only five German cruisers loose at the beginning of the Great War, and every one of them not only raided commerce but destroyed an allied warship before it was finally brought to its fate. All these five cruisers are sub-category A cruisers, which if they are to be built by Germany will be in the water long before we are allowed to begin building a single one. Every one of those five ships will be eminently superior. They will be fighting ships of the highest class, ships of enormous capacity as commerce raiders and capable of resisting any vessel except a battle cruiser, by which they might eventually be brought to action. Therefore, I thought that that was a very serious and needless complication of our naval strategy and our naval position.
I am very glad that the Germans have assured us that it is their desire—it is not an absolute bargain or agreement—not to use their right to construct the whole of the five cruisers but to construct only three of them. Certainly, nothing could illustrate more the foolish tangle into which we have got ourselves than that we should have to sit down till 1943 and see these enormously powerful,

potential commerce destroyers brought into being. It is very remarkable that the Germans should have agreed to that, having regard to the new complication in their own household in the Baltic, owing to the decision of Russia to build a surface Fleet. I am often thought to be a critic of Germany, and therefore I wish to make full recognition of what she has done. In spite of this Russian pre-occupation, which nautrally concerns Germany, because the Baltic is a vital strategic matter for German defence, they have been willing to give us an assurance that they will try their best to meet us. We hope they will take pity on the forlorn and foolish situation in which we have allowed ourselves to be entangled by our good-natured agreements, and will agree to reduce their construction of these cruisers from five to three.
I must congratulate the Government upon having obtained an agreement to bar out the intermediate type of cruiser, that is, the cruiser above the sub-category "A" cruiser, the cruiser between the subcategory "A" ship and the capital ship. There is a gap from the 17,500-ton ship down to the 10,000-ton ship. Considering that the United States and Great Britain have a considerable number of 8-inch gun 10,000-ton cruisers, it is very much to their interest that no class of vessels of 15,000 tons, mounting 9-inch or 10-inch guns, should come into existence and render their whole stock-in-trade obsolete. Therefore, it has become a matter of enormous importance to the unfortunate Admirals and naval authorities who have been entangled and trammelled in the provisions of the Treaties, to bar out this intermediate gap which would render their Treaty-constructed cruisers extremely out-of-date instruments of war. The proper way to throw them out of gear is the construction of 15,000-ton vessels, with 9-inch or 10-inch guns, but there is an agreement that that shall not be done. That is a very great advantage and I think we have been met in a considerate way on that point.
It is also highly advantageous that there should be an agreement in regard to the interchange of information. Nothing could be better than that. I am all for the fullest information being given on all occasions. Half the suspicions that arise between countries is removed when the full facts are laid


before the world. I remember well before the War the scare there was that the Germans were building additional battleships in the boat-houses on the Elbe, and that concealed and secret Dreadnoughts were going to spring into existence. I pleaded then that we should have the fullest interchange of information. Certainly, the words that were spoken by Admiral von Tirpitz and the assurances he gave were in every respect true. I welcome the interchange of information. The more we know about these matters, the more we are able to say openly about them, the less harmful and dangerous will become the situation in which we live.
The subject that has caused me most anxiety in regard to these documents is the fact that we have definitely recognised that the other Powers concerned will build 16-inch gun battleships. They are entitled to do so. That would not have been stipulated for in the agreement unless they were determined to do it. Otherwise, there would be no difficulty in deferring to our wish to build 14-inch gun battleships. The position is that there will be 16-inch gun battleships built. Japan is doing it. The First Lord professes not to know, but the United States know enough about it to have taken their decision and to have announced the building of 16-inch gun ships, and they are pretty well informed of the intentions of Japan. If Germany, and Italy also, do it, there will be two of the principal European naval Powers with 16-inch guns.
We have already committed ourselves to the construction of five 14-inch gun battleships. These great weapons of war, each costing £8,000,000 or £9,000,000, which are to be the symbol of our right and our power to preserve our freedom and to intervene in world affairs, are definitely to be equipped with 14-inch guns. It is a highly technical discussion as to whether you should have 16-inch guns or 14-inch guns. All the Powers apparently are agreed upon the 35,000-ton limit, except Japan, and the question which naval constructors have to face and on which this argument turns is whether you can put 16-inch guns satisfactorily into a 35,000-ton ship. I have seen some statements about it which apepar to me to be by no means exhaustive of the topic. We are told that you must save the weights in order to

protect your new construction against the new dangers from the air and so forth.
Anyone who looks at the well known and easily accessible figures can see what a very serious short-fall there is in the 14-inch gun as from the 16-inch gun. I elicited certain figures last year in reply to a question in debate, and therefore the figures which I am about to give are public property. Nine 16-inch guns in three triple turrets would fire nearly a 50 per cent. heavier broadside than the same number of 14-inch guns, and the additional cost would be only a few hundred thousand pounds. A 50 per cent. or even a 40 per cent. addition to a broadside is an enormous difference. But it does not stop with the amalgamated weight of the salvo and broadside. Not only has it got a greater crushing power, but the cubic content of the explosive is again lifted on a geometrical rather than an arithmetical scale.
Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for the heavy gun. The heavy gun has always been the traditional weapon upon which Great Britain has relied. It was the heavy gun which defeated the Armada. Our smaller ships had far heavier guns. In the construction of the Queen Elizabeth we went in for the heaviest guns in Europe, and I have no prickings of conscience in regard to it. These ships are among the most successful constructed for the Royal Navy. Observe, then, that nine 16-inch guns in three turrets would cost very little more and would weigh no more than nine, ten or eleven 14-inch guns in four turrets, because of the great weight of the turret in the gun-house. Therefore, it seems to me that we must not regard the problem of placing 16-inch guns successfully and satisfactorily in the 35,000-ton ship as beyond the skill of competent designers in the United States, or Japan, or Germany, or Italy. If they do solve the problem satisfactorily and make thoroughly seaworthy ships, ships which are in every respect well balanced and which can carry these much heavier guns, then in future years it will be something of a reproach in the Royal Navy that the first five great new battleships we built—in deference to setting an example to other countries and with an earnest and honourable desire to try to retard the pace of naval armaments—battleships costing £40,000,000, and being for 25 years the governing


factor in the Battle Fleet of the Royal Navy, were constructed upon a basis and with a gun power which renders them definitely inferior to the contemporary vessels they will have to meet.
It is not only a question of material force—after all when you are building a battleship you are thinking of the supreme expression of material force—there is a great moral value also. We regard British battleships as symbols of naval power, but they are also the means by which we gain credit in the world for working towards a peaceful solution of many difficulties, and British prestige will not be advanced if it is found in possession of a large number of these extremely costly vessels which, however excellent they may be—and I do not for a moment doubt their excellence—will be considered as not the strongest vessels in the world, that is assuming that German, American and Japanese designers are able to solve a problem which we are assured by the Admiralty is insoluble.
I apologise to the House for dealing at length with these matters, but they are important and ought to be considered by the House. What I would say to the Government is this: The past is past, what is done is done, whether right or wrong. We are going to have five magnificent ships. I have no doubt that they will be magnificent ships, but suppose that the Japanese, the Germans, the Americans and the Italians solve the problem of mounting these big guns inside a 35,000 ton ship in a satisfactory manner—

Mr. Alexander: They have done it.

Mr. Churchill: I am talking about the new programme. Suppose they solve the problem in a satisfactory manner, as they may do, then we must be ready to make a change. Do not let us be told that we are to lose another three years because we have not made our preparations. That is the point upon which I want to make an appeal. Will the First Lord now make sure that he begins the preparations for all the alterations to gun plant which will be required in the event of an advance to the 16-inch gun being considered necessary, and will he have constructed an experimental 16-inch gun mounting in order that everything may be

in readiness? Then, it we find that other countries have solved this problem, which we have not, and we are forced to go forward with the higher guns, there will be no further delay. I make a strong appeal that this preliminary work should be set in train at once. In this matter, as in others, you can see how naval agreements and treaties hamper and cripple British initiative. It is true that if other people take steps which we hoped they would not take we have freedom to take fresh steps, but we have always waited for a year or two and then when an advance has been made upon us in cruisers and battleships by other countries invoke the escalator clause and take the next step.
We used to lead the whole world in naval construction. Other nations held back their programme to see what designs the British Admiralty brought out year after year. We have given this great advantage away, not for any unworthy motive but for most sincere and goodhearted motives. Nevertheless, I deplore the very great and marked cost to the strength of the Royal Navy and to the proper and economic realisation of British naval resources. I did not get up to make any attack or criticism upon the actual business which is before the House. On the contrary, I consider that this agreement greatly improves the existing Anglo-German Treaty. It is the least crippling and hampering of all the naval agreements into which we have entered in later years, and I welcome the clear practical understanding and co-operation which must have been forthcoming from British and German naval officers and experts before this highly technical instrument could have been brought to completion.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I want to make only one comment on the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He has always been looked upon in recent years as one of the foremost champions of the collective system of massing overwhelming forces against an aggressor, but I entirely fail to see how that system is going to he worked effectively if there must never be the slightest interference in any way with the British Navy. You must be willing to co-operate and work with other people, and it is no good saying that what the British say goes and that it does not matter what


anybody else may say. May I associate myself with the congratulations to the First Lord on his attaining his present position? I hope he will make a great success, and that on the next occasion he will come to the House with a Measure of much greater importance than the one he has brought forward to-day. He does not himself pretend that it is a Bill which means very much. I think he feels it to be rather a poor little thing, but perhaps its smallness is the measure of the complete failure of the foreign policy of the National Government during the last five years. In my judgment the situation in which we find ourselves to-day is due to the weakness and folly of the British Government since the National Government came into office.
But working within the narrow limits of the world situation, the Bill has certain merits and it is one which we shall support, as we desire to see it passed into law. May I point out some of its merits which have not actually been mentioned? It means some advance, and it is better to have some advance than none at all. Further, throughout the whole of the negotiations I understand that there were the happiest relations between representatives of the British and American Governments. They understood each other, their views were similar, and at the close of the negotiations a letter was exchanged in which it was made clear that we regarded the American Government's idea of partiy as a fundamental part of British policy. Personally it seems to me that this is of enormous importance, and that we should always press that position. In parity with the American Government you have a potential doubling of the British Navy. I cannot conceive any situation in which they would come in against us, and if they are properly handled, and we pursue a foreign policy which will command their respect, they will come in with us on every occasion. In that way any increase in the American Navy is an increase of the British Navy.
The third merit of the Bill is that the Government have succeeded in producing an international instrument to which Germany and Soviet Russia are parties. That is a thing which nobody else has been able to do. It is true they have done it by rather indirect methods, but however much Germany may dislike it they are parties to an agreement to which

Soviet Russia and other nations are a party also. I hope this will encourage them to go on and be willing to enter into agreements on a very much wider scale with all the important countries of the world. I feel that one of the most important minor merits of the Bill is the great advance in notification. That is a real improvement. A much more complete list of basic information is to be given and a more complete covering of ships' categories than ever before. I imagine that a provision of that kind, far in advance of anything in any previous naval treaty, will prevent such surprises as have occurred in the past by the sudden introduction of the Dreadnought and the Deutschland. In this connection it is interesting to see what are our actual obligations as to the exchange of information under the Covenant of the League. Under Article 8, Section 6:
Members of the League undertake to exchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes.
We are a long way from doing that, but in this Measure there are some steps taken towards carrying out these obligations. I regret that there are no arrangements for mutual inspection of each other's ships and dockyards to see whether promises are being kept. The First Lord gave us a lecture on the solemnity of international obligations, how we must trust each other and assume that people meant what they said. That is all very nice, but we know that there are some Powers in the world, nothing will induce me to mention them by name, whose word is not quite as reliable as that of other Powers. Under the disarmament proposals the National Government were prepared to go a long way to have mutual inspection by representatives of the Disarmament Commission to see what was going on in our establishments here, and I think it would have been another useful step forward and would have led to a great deal of mutual confidence if some arrangement of that kind could have been carried out. No doubt we shall all have our unofficial inspectors, our spies, to see whether these obligations are being carried out or not. Why not do it openly by arrangement rather than by the very much less attractive way of


having spies to do the work? The fifth point of merit in the Bill is that there are arrangements for a new Naval Conference to take place in 1941, with a preliminary discussion a few months previously. It is something to have had that definitely fixed so as not to have the conference spreading over several years.
I have alluded to the fact that the Measure is on a very limited scale. The limited situation with which the Government have had to deal was produced by their foreign policy. It arises from the disastrous events which took place in Manchuria in 1931. The naval and military authorities in Japan were wondering how far they would be allowed by other Powers to take forcible action, the civil authorities in Japan were still in control, and there was an internal struggle going on. If Great Britain had acted firmly, according to her obligations, the civil authorities in Japan would have triumphed, the policy of force would have been nipped in the bud, and the whole world situation, from the point, of view of a naval agreement, would have been changed for the better. We might then have gone forward on the basis of the Washington and London Treaties, and have made a great advance on them.
If we had seized the opportunities of the Disarmament Conference in the realm of Naval affairs, almost unthinkable progress could have been made. There is reference in this Agreement to battleships of 35,000 tons, but I believe there was a moment in the discussions at the Disarmament Conference when firm leadership would have produced agreement on the basis of 10,000 ton battleships, and we could have accepted for the world limits which were thought good enough for Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Owing to the way in which the situation was handled, that is something which is almost inconceivable at the present time. It is the measure of the change in the situation to see the difference between battleships of 35,000 tons—and there is no certainty about that limit—and the definite limitation to 10,000 tons which was at one time within sight.
The whole of our troubles in Naval affairs are due to the fact that there is in power in Japan a government which relies on force as an instrument of national policy, and which is unwilling

to co-operate with other countries in order to come to a general agreement for disarmament and conciliation on the lines of the League of Nations. But as that is the case, I entirely agree that there is no alternative but to face it. If they are going to use force, it is necessary for others, the United States and ourselves, who stand by the new order, to possess forces which will make it entirely impossible for their views to prevail. We are obliged to take up that attitude, but it is due to the attitude of Japan, and that in turn is due to the foreign policy of the present Government. We are in a very dangerous situation as regards the race in armaments. I would like here to quote some words which appeared in the Memorandum on the London Naval Conference, published on 25th March, 1936:
Furthermore, the agreement should go far to put into effect the hopes expressed by the Prime Minister at the opening of the Conference, that the public mind will be relieved of the threat of a general race in Naval armaments.
How untrue those words are to-day. The Naval race is going on at the present time. That statement bears no relation to facts as they now are. There has been a good deal of reference in this Debate to the question of 16-inch guns on battleships. The only comment I wish to make on that is to stress the fact that there is there a very great possibility of a race in armaments on a colossal scale, involving enormous expense. It has been made clear to-day that the United States and Japan are going to put in 16-inch guns. I understand that Great Britain and France take the view that the most efficient way is to have 14-inch guns, because one cannot put in guns of a higher calibre without sacrificing speed and protective power. I understand the British view is that with 16-inch guns, it would be necessary to have a vessel of something like 40,000 tons or 45,000 tons. If there are 18-inch guns, which is by no means impossible, if Japan cares to build them in due course, it will be necessary to have battleships of approximately 57,000 tons. There we have some indication of the road to ruin on which the whole world is travelling at the present time.
I wish to refer to one matter that has not been spoken of in the Debate, namely, the lapse of Article 19 of the Washington Treaty, which deals with the fortification of insular bases. That is another


very great potential danger in the future. There is danger of the race in the construction of fortifications and Naval bases in the islands in the Far East. This is again due to the policy of the Japanese Government, which refuses to come to any agreement on these matters with the other Powers. I understand that it is the desire of the Japanese Government at any rate to have available for purposes of fortification the Islands of Bonin, Amami-O Shima, and Loochoo, which they regard as vital in the chain of their national defence. Certain of the islands in which Japan is interested are held on mandate from the League of Nations, and the Japanese Government will not permit anyone to go to those islands to see what is taking place. I think some information ought to be given as to the attitude of the British Government on that matter, for it is not solely a matter for Japan, but is one for the League of Nations. We ought to take the necessary steps, through the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League, to find out what is going on in those islands, where any fortification is wholly prohibited. There is every reason to suppose that fortification is going on.
If there is fortification of those Japanese Islands, will the United States take no action? There are available the Aleutian Islands, the fortification of which is no longer excluded. I presume that the United States also will have to act. Have the Government any information on this matter? If Japan and the United States take action of that sort, what will be the position of the British Government with regard to Hong Kong, which was previously excluded, but which is now available? Will the Government be good enough to inform the House whether they now contemplate any action with regard to Hong Kong, or whether, in the event of the two other Powers concerned fortifying their islands, they will feel called upon to do something of the kind? There would then be a race in those fortifications.
I am afraid the prospect is very gloomy; but with regard to this Measure, I do not see that we can do anything except pass it as a useful and very minute remainder of what might have been and what should have been. It is only by resolute, consistent and wholehearted backing of the collective system of the League of Nations, above all by the

British Government, that we can produce conditions which will make real Naval disarmament possible and bring peace and security to the world.

5.39 p.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that a vast effort to restore our Defences is necessary and that the expense will be enormous. There-for, any arrangments that may be made to cut down expenditure on our armaments, provided they do not interfere with our security, will be welcomed by all. I was at the Board of Admiralty at the time the Washington Conference took place, and when the Treaty was being worked out. Although I do not like Naval Treaties and think that the British Navy should be left alone to work out its own salvation, I recognise that the Washington Treaty was a statesmanlike measure and very necessary in order to put a stop to the race in the building of capital ships in the interests of economy. After all, at that time war was remote. We had a vast Navy, and the great thing about that Treaty was that it provided security in that we were allowed to build such cruisers and small craft as were necessary to protect our trade routes.
Ever since I entered the House, I have done my best to take the question of rearmament outside party politics, and even the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will not provoke me into saying anything about the London Treaty of 1930. Since we are apparently bound to have Naval Treaties, I welcomed the Treaty that followed it, since it dealt with the quality of armaments, rather than their quantity, but I cannot help looking upon the Anglo-German Treaty, which is of a quantitative nature, with a good deal of suspicion. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out, there will be a time when the German Navy will possess 8-inch cruisers which are bound to be far superior to the 8-inch cruisers which we built some time ago and cannot replace for several years.
The right lion. Gentleman the Member for Epping covered a great deal of ground and I am generally in agreement with what he said. I would like to remind the House of the construction which was carried out when the right hon. Gentle-


man was First Lord of the Admiralty. I remember that before the "Queen Elizabeth" was laid down, he talked to me about the battle cruisers that had been built by Lord Fisher. He pointed out to me that it was not good enough to put great guns on a ship without armour and to trust to speed to keep you out of trouble. An action might have to be fought, owing to visibility, at much closer range, and ships carrying great guns but lacking protection would be destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman drew an outline of a ship which he thought was the type to build. That ship was not contemplated then, but it was the "Queen Elizabeth," for which he was entirely responsible. There was a great deal of opposition at the time, on the ground that it cost a great deal more than the "Royal Sovereign," which was the type favoured by the Admiralty.
The right hon. Gentleman was right. Those battle cruisers were built by Lord Fisher to destroy cruisers, and the action at the Falkland Islands proved that they could do so. Admiral von Tirpitz saw further and decided to protect his battle cruisers with armour, and the result of that was shown at the Battle of Jutland. Three of our ill-protected battle cruisers blew up, the German battle cruisers took any amount of punishment and remained afloat. The "Seydlitz" was reduced to a wreck, but remained afloat and got home. The "Lutzow" was terribly damaged, but the Germans sank her with torpedoes to prevent her from falling into our hands.
The building of a warship is a matter of compromise in the relative allocation of weight to speed, armament, armour and under-water protection which have all to be balanced. The Sea Lords of the present Board of Admiralty have, of course, weighed all those conflicting considerations. If they consider that a 14-inch gun battleship is the best compromise in relation to armament and protection for a 35,000-ton ship, then I think the Navy generally will trust them. If Japan finds that she has to increase the tonnage of her ships considerably in order to give adequate protection to a ship carrying 16-inch guns, it will give rise to very serious considerations and the Admiralty may have to build ships of far greater tonnage than 35,000 tons to get a well-balanced ship carrying 16-inch

guns. Therefore I would support the recommendation made by my right hon. Friend that this matter should be closely gone into. However, I have not the slightest doubt that it is being closely gone into by the Board of Admiralty and the technicians. I recently attended a discussion on this subject at the Institute of Naval Architects. This question of compromise is a very serious one. You cannot sink ships with armour plate, and therefore you have to balance your protection against your hitting power, but if the projectiles of our 14-inch guns will penetrate any armour that another Power can put on 35,000-ton ships carrying 16-inch guns and at the same time you can carry armour to keep out the 16-inch projectiles, that is all to the good, but it is really a matter for experts, and it is better to leave it to them. It is a question which requires day-to-day study. I cannot pretend to be up to date upon it now, although I was 10 or 12 years ago.
I have not followed the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in his excursion into foreign policy. He asked that there should be official inspection of the building programmes of other nations. After all, naval attachés exist for that purpose. I was a naval attaché in four different countries and I found that naval attachés had no difficulty in knowing what was going on in the countries in which they were serving. It is easy to say that this country or that country cannot be trusted, but I think everybody recognises that the Treaties dealt with in this Bill represent an honest and definite effort to cut down expenditure on armaments. I think no one should welcome this fact more than hon. Members opposite.
May I, in conclusion, add my welcome and good wishes to those which have already been extended to the First Lord of the Admiralty on his assumption of his new office? He has wonderful opportunities in that office to-day because we are now, just as we were in 1889, on the threshhold of the restoration of our sea-power and, in such circumstances, what greater office could there be than that of being in charge of the Admiralty? The right hon. Gentleman may be certain that the Navy will judge his tenure of office by the success of his efforts towards the real restoration of our sea-power which does not only lie in the building of ships.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Benn: It is rather rash on the part of one who is not in any sense an expert in these matters to speak in a Debate of this kind, especially when we have had the privilege of listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir R. Keyes), who speaks with the highest authority on these technical subjects. While I think most Members of the House were under the impression that we were to have had a Debate on the limitation of armaments on this occasion, we have actually had a discussion on naval rearmament by leading exponents of that policy all of whom desire to get rid of limitations on armaments and to increase our expenditure under that head. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has been one of the protagonists on this occasion. Instead of speaking on the limitation of armaments, the whole theme of his eloquent speech was "Away with all agreements of all kinds." He wants complete freedom, and the hon. and gallant Admiral who spoke last desires simply that Britannia should rule the waves. That is his simple doctrine. It is a sentiment which warms all our hearts, but it is not exactly consistent with the election manifestoes of the Government, nor with the commonly expressed hope that we should get some form of agreement regulating these heavy armaments with the financial and moral responsibilities which they entail. I wish it were in order on this occasion to speak of the use of the Navy and the degradaton of naval power which we have seen recently on the North coast of Spain, but I am aware that that would be going outside the limits of this Debate.
I would remind the House of the vast change that has come over the face of this problem since this Government has been in office. It would be wrong and unfair—and I have never sought to do so—to blame this Government wholly for what has occurred. But it is obvious that since 1932 and the end of the Disarmament Conference, the prospects of disarmament have steadily receded. The conduct of Government spokesmen in 1932 at Geneva, when Mr. Hoover made his great offer of disarmament which was received with such chilly evasion by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the beginning of the march back. At that time, there was no German problem and no Italian problem, and it is appropriate

to remark, on such an occasion as this, that the Government has to carry a heavy responsibility, perhaps the heaviest, with all the other nations of the world, for the fact that instead of discussing a Bill for disarmament or the limitation of armaments to-day, we are engaged in making suggestions to the First Lord as to how our strength can be improved and our charges increased. When the Labour Government went out of office the naval charges were £52,000,000 a year. Now they stand at £105,000,000. I do not base my argument, however, mainly upon cost but upon much more serious grounds.
As far as this Bill is concerned, I have just two things to say. After what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has said, we expect a definite statement from the Government on what they are going to do about these 16-inch guns. We know that Japan and the United States have determined to adopt these guns. It would not be fair to the House to ask it to pass a Bill including that item, without being told exactly what are the Government's intentions. While that is being done, it would be useful if the First Lord were also to tell us what will be the cost of altering the design of the five new ships and re-equipping them. In the Bill itself there is hardly anything worth comment. It is an agreement to agree. Of course it would be good to have an exchange of information. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it was the absence of knowledge and the presence of suspicion which made the situation so difficult before the War. I think he and I are the only people taking part in this Debate who remember the famous Debate in 1909 across this Table when Mr. Balfour, as he then was, demanded from Mr. McKenna a programme of eight ships. Then we had all sorts of calculations and a sort of auction going on as to how many ships we were prepared to have and how many other Powers had. If that kind of thing could be avoided by a frank exchange of information, it would be all to the good, but to ask us to believe that in these documents which we are now considering any hope is held out to the world of naval limitation is asking too much. To do the First Lord credit, he did not ask that.
One other point is that a light is thrown here upon the relations between Germany and Japan. We have heard a great deal about the anti-Communist pact,


but it does not seem to have stood the strain in this instance, because the Germans appear to have agreed that the Russians should be allowed to build up to whatever they think necessary to meet the situation in the Far East. That, certainly, is a welcome feature for what it is worth. But as far as these documents generally are concerned, no one would think of opposing them, and I do not suppose anyone would mind supporting them, because there is little in them. As for the general situation, since this Government came into office there has been a steady retrogression, and the hope of international limitation of armaments has almost disappeared.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. W. Astor: I am sincerely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has temporarily pulled out of the line of battle, because I wanted, not to send a salvo into him, but to offer him thanks for his wonderful justification of the amount which is being spent by His Majesty's Government on naval armaments. He pointed out that our expenditure at the moment is about one-third of the world total. It was in that same proportion at the time when he was responsible for the Navy, and it was in the same proportion before the War. Surely none of his supporters would suggest that the increase in the amount spent by the world on naval armaments has been due in any way to any lead given by His Majesty's Government either now or in the past. Surely, also, if we were spending less, in proportion to the other countries to-day than the proportion which we were spending when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Navy, we would have a lower standard of security now than that which the Labour Government thought necessary at a time when there was, comparatively speaking, a lack of international anxiety. I think we can thank the right hon. Gentleman for having pointed out an argument which had not previously occurred to some of us. Of course, some of the increased expenditure has been necessary because capital ships were getting out of date owing to sheer old age and new developments in anti-aircraft warfare. This has necessitated a great deal of expenditure.
The Treaties which are now before the House may be criticised, but I do not think it can be denied that they are largely solving the difficulties of the European naval situation. It is true that they do not touch the Far East, but if we add to them the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, it can be seen that the naval problem in European waters is immensely simplified and improved by them. One shudders to think of what the situation would have been if His Majesty's Government had not had the independence and courage to negotiate and sign the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. It is almost frightening to think of what the position might be without that agreement. There are many bolt-holes and loop-holes in these documents, but the qualitative relations between the German and the British Navy are absolute. There are no escalator clauses in them. Of course the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is afraid of people breaking their word, but at least we can say that in Europe since 1922 no nation has broken any of the naval treaties of disarmament, and if every nation including Germany has observed these Treaties, there is at least warrant for going on with them in the future, and for refusing to give up in despair while we have this good example.
The gap in Europe is, of course, Italy. We sincerely hope that nothing will be done which will discourage Italy from coming in and that with the liquidation of the present Spanish situation we shall see Italy signing a Treaty, in the drawing up of which she took a great part and left, not for technical reasons, but for political reasons which had nothing to do with naval limitations. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to this Treaty merely as a scrap of paper, hardly worth the paper on which it is written. If that be so, is it really conceivable that foreign countries, including Soviet Russia, should have taken such immense pains to be quite sure of what was written on this scrap of paper? It was a long and laborious negotiation, in every comma of which they took a deep interest, and surely that shows that some value attaches to these naval Treaties. Of course, it is easy to imagine a much better naval Treaty. Everybody would like a quantitative limitation as well, and His Majesty's Government sincerely tried to


get it, but, viewing facts as they are and viewing the fact that these Treaties are negotiated and not dictated Treaties, I think our Government are to be congratulated on the results.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, speaking of the Far Eastern situation, seemed, as is his wont to lay the entire blame for it on His Majesty's Government. Anybody who has studied the Far East at all will know that the causes of the Manchurian dispute and of Japan leaving a collective system, leaving the League, and leaving the naval limitations agreement date very much farther back than that. They are due to internal economic and social problems, buried deep in the economic and social structure of Japan. The political results followed, and there is very little which was done in the Manchurian dispute or afterwards that affected those internal Japanese problems which produced the sad result.
If one were going to make party points over it one might point out that in 1932 we had a Labour Government which had got its finances into so obscure a condition that we had to have all these reductions, which led to the trouble in the Navy, and it is not perhaps entirely a coincidence that the troubles in Mukden followed very shortly after the troubles at Invergordon. The troubles at Invergordon were due to the economic crisis, which at least His Majesty's present advisers did nothing to bring on. Secondly, one might also point out that during the time when the Labour party were in office they retarded work on the Singapore base, and that if that work had been pressed on we might have been in a far different position vis-à-vis Japan, but without the Singapore base the British Navy was absolutely helpless. The hon. Member took much too superficial a view of the Far Eastern problem and of its causes, economic and social, which have got to be dealt with internationally. We certainly hope that the present trouble will increase the desire of His Majesty's Government to try and ease the troubles in the Far East.
As regards the Russian fleet in the Far East, which seemed to give the right hon. Member for Hillsborough such worry, I think he can he reassured. In the first place, the Russian fleet's record throughout history is not such as to inspire the Japanese Government with terror, and,

secondly, it is very unlikely that Japan is going to sit and watch Russia building a formidable fleet under her very nose or that Russia will attempt any such hazardous experiment. The sovereign remedy has been given to us. It is said that the way to improve these naval Treaties is to strengthen the League in the Far East. But the Far East is one of the few places where any amount of strengthening of the League is likely to have extraordinarily little effect. It is much more likely to be done by paralleling our policy with that of the United States of America and getting the two navies working so closely together as to produce the same beneficent results in the Far East as our parallelism with France produces in Europe.
I think the attacks on His Majesty's Government in connection with these Treaties have extraordinarily little weight, and really these Treaties savour of the miraculous. To have been able in 1937, in view of what is happening in every other sphere of foreign policy, to have secured these highly useful and important Treaties is a thing on which the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and those who have had to do the detail work deserve the greatest congratulation. It shows that the less ambitious methods of bilateral negotiation in the sphere of disarmament have had great success, and we only hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to follow up this success by similar methods in other spheres.

6.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: It was an extremely touching sight to watch the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor), who has just sat down, speaking under a fond parental eye. Surely, it was what is known as the Oedipus complex which led him to request that that gaze should be directed upon him from the rear. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) to deal with the extremely inaccurate remarks of the hon. Member about the events at Invergordon, but I thought he spoke very airily indeed about the liquidation of the present situation in Spain, which was to be followed by Italy doing everything that is sweet and proper. May I remind him that we have already, quite recently, signed a Treaty with Italy, under which Italy undertakes to preserve the status quo in the Mediterranean, and that


if Italy would honour that Treaty in good faith, then indeed the situation in Spain would be liquidated very easily and very quickly?
If the First Lord of the Admiralty will allow me to say so, I think he opened this Debate very fairly indeed, making no extravagant claims whatsoever for these Treaties, but speaking very moderately indeed about their value. In fact, the only enthusiasm that I thought he showed in the course of his remarks was when he referred to the admirable work done by Sir R. Craigie in connection with these Treaties, remarks which I am certain will be endorsed by anyone who knows anything about the work which has been done. All that I can say is that I hope that in the future the First Lord will find happier opportunities for the display of his talents than these particular Treaties are able to afford him. There is one question that I would like to ask him. Do we know everything about these Treaties? It is only quite recently that we found out that the Anglo-German Treaty, signed in 1935, had a secret agreement attached to it. Are there any secret agreements attached to these Treaties which have not been mentioned to-day?
Obviously, the Powers which have not signed these treaties dictate the situation, so that the treaties are of very doubtful value indeed. Naval treaties which leave Italy and Japan outside are of very little use, but it may fairly be said that nothing else was open to us. There was nothing more that we could get, and at any rate, if these treaties do not do much good, they do not do very much harm, unless possibly they engender a completely false sense of security and of limitation of armaments. There are so many escape Clauses to these treaties that they are hardly worth anything at all. Any country which is a signatory can escape from any of their provisions at will, and practically without formality, thanks to these escape Clauses, and, as a matter of fact, Japan, which is not a signatory, has it in her power to give any country which is a signatory the opportunity of escaping from the provisions of the treaties through these escape Clauses.
Is Germany entitled to divide her 35 per cent of light craft between the three categories of "A" and "B" cruisers

and destroyers in each category, or is she entitled to 35 per cent. of our total tonnage in light craft? Is the 35 per cent. to which she is entitled to be divided beween each of those three categories, or is she, for instance, entitled to have more than the five "A"-class cruisers to which our 15 "A"-class cruisers would entitle her under the 35 per cent. clause, if she chooses to have more "A"-class cruisers by diminishing her tonnage in either of the other two categories? Then again, on exactly what basis is the tonnage of our Fleet calculated for the purposes of assessing the 35 per cent. to which Germany is entitled? The Treaty speaks of 35 per cent. as defined by treaty, but defence vessels and torpedo boats are not defined by treaty and, therefore, I think it is of importance to know exactly upon what basis our tonnage is calculated in order to arrive at the 35 per cent. to which Germany is entitled. Further, on what basis is the ratio between over-age and under-age tonnage calculated? The German Navy being of rather modern construction, it seems to me that Germany must be short of what we call over-age tonnage, and, therefore, how is that ratio calculated? Those are two or three specific points which I think it would assist the House to have cleared up.
To turn to more general considerations, a certain amount of stress has been laid upon the provision for exchange of information. I feel that it is a very pious hope that any benefit will be derived from this exchange of information. We know quite well that the Intelligence services of all naval countries have long ago found out that it is quite impossible to keep the main facts about naval construction secret. It simply cannot be done. You can keep secret certain details of naval construction, but the fact that you are building certain ships of a certain tonnage and with certain armament is, in a very short time, common property all over the world. What we are doing by this provision about exchange of information is to recognise the fact that you cannot keep those secrets. We are, therefore, agreeing to the exchange of information which the countries concerned would get hold of anyhow.
When it comes to exchanging information about details which it is possible to keep secret, I do not believe that any country concerned, our own included, will


be bound by this provision. Will the information about our naval construction which is to be given to other Powers be given to them before it is given to this House, or will it be in excess of the information given to this House? I have an idea that we shall arrive at the farcical situation that under these treaties we shall be giving to other Powers information which is withheld from Members of the House. I notice that Russia not only need give no information about her Far Eastern construction, but, if she chooses to say that she feels threatened by Japan, she can cut out all the processes of consultation and delay which attach to the escape clauses. She is to be the sole judge. She need not explain her reasons for feeling threatened; she merely has to say that she believes Japan is exceeding the London Treaty limits, and then she can go ahead without consultation with the other signatory Powers.
I would like to turn to what I think is the main feature of this Debate, that is, the "A"-class cruisers, the 10,000-ton 8-inch gun cruisers. We have 15 of them and we have bound ourselves to build no more until 1942. The Anglo-German Agreement in 1935 entitled Germany to build five of these large "A"-class cruisers, of which three are already laid down. Under this Treaty Russia may build up to seven such cruisers, but, in accordance with the timorous and genteel decency which prevails in the phraseology of these treaties, she hopes not to do so. The real fact, stripped of all pretence and all these worthless and fictitious provisos, is that any country may build "A"-class cruisers if she feels threatened. Therefore, to use a phrase employed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), the race is on from this moment in these "A"-class cruisers. The escape clauses permit it. Germany may build "A"-class cruisers if Russia builds "B"-class cruisers which outclass German "B"-class cruisers. That is an excuse to Germany to build these "A"-class cruisers.
Germany and Italy may build crusers above the limits of the London Treaty. Germany and Russia will certainly build them, and the result is there may be five German 10,000-ton cruisers against which we have no comparable ships to set. The First Lord knows that it is not merely a question of building three more of these five "A"-class cruisers which are pro-

vided for by the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. Germany has reserved her right to increase beyond these five. The situation is simply that at the present moment our 15 "A"-class cruisers are already outclassed by "A"-class cruisers of other navies, and we have bound ourselves to build no more of them until 1942 although other countries can invoke and profit by every conceivable form of escape clause in order to go on building that class of ship. I hope that the result of this will not be a repetition of the melancholy story we learned at Coronel when the "Good Hope" and "Monmouth" found themselves out-gunned and outclassed by the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau."
We ought to get the position clear about the 16-inch guns. As I understand it, Japan has reserved her right to instal 16-inch guns, but has not so far categorically announced that she is mounting them in any of her new construction. On the other hand, I understand that we have a categorical declaration by America that she is proposing to instal guns of that calibre in her new construction. If that is the position, it would be a good thing if it could be confirmed so that the House would know what the position is with regard to 16-inch guns. The moment one country puts 16-inch guns into a ship, other major naval Powers will inevitably follow the example. Here again, just as the race is on in the "A"-class cruisers, so the race is on in the 16-inch gun capital ship. I do not know whether we shall get any declaration. We have had a statement by the former First Lord of the Admiralty in answer to a question by myself that even if America or Japan announced an intention to instal 16-inch guns, the design of our new capital ships which are now laid down would not be altered and that we would stick to the 14-inch guns. Does the First Lord repeat that undertaking in regard to the three further capital ships which are to be laid down? I do not believe that he can.
The general conclusions I am led to are that these treaties give no real limitation whatever. It is all quite illusory, and there is no prospect of any real limitation to be found within the contents of the treaties. This country in regard to its future naval construction has to be guided by its own interests and by nothing else, because there is no real naval limitation in existence. If that be so, let me remind the First Lord that this


country has very little to gain, curiously enough, from leading the van in new naval construction. What was said this afternoon about the construction of the "Dreadnought" is true. By building that ship we wiped out the great superiority that we had and we put other naval Powers on an equal footing with ourselves. We gave them an equal start with ourselves in that particular form of "Dreadnought" construction. If the 16-inch gun 35,000-ton battleships are to be built, do not let us feel necessarily that our security is built up in that direction. Do not let us necessarily say that we are going to lead the way in that particular class of ship. Let us concentrate instead upon finding the counter to ships of that enormous size and gun power. Do not let us sit down and say that that is the last word in capital ship strategy or technique or naval construction. The more we see other countries going in for these mammoth ships and guns, the more the brains of our staff and our constructors should be devoted to finding the counter to them. Of all forms of armament competition, big gun and big ship competition is the most futile and wasteful. These treaties do nothing to secure
limitations of big ship building. They illustrate and underline the failure of the Government to bring about an international situation in which limitation is possible. The race is on in naval competition and construction, and expenditure is bound to increase, with a corresponding reduction in the standard of living. By their failure to support efforts for disarmament and efforts for limitation, the Government have brought about a situation which this country will yet bitterly rue.

6.26 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: When I hear speeches like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), I am not surprised that the National Government win every by-election. I have listened to the speeches of hon. Members opposite with deep interest, and what strikes me most is that, although they are a Socialist party based on internationalism, they are suspicious of everybody. They are even suspicious of Russia now. We have heard their criticisms, but they have not put forward one constructive idea. They talk

about the 1922 Naval Agreement and ask why that cannot go on. The reason is obvious. In 1922 Great Britain was strong and the United States of America was strong. Russia was just beginning her revolution, and we had not Hitler or Mussolini. The world was quite easy in those days for reasonable democracies. Now we are faced with a totally different situation. I cannot understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite, who want some day to lead this country, can make the futile speeches which they have made. When I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite speaking, I thank God that in the country we have good old strong trade union leaders who have common sense. When I hear the party fireworks and know that they are not based on anything that is fundamental, I sometimes despair.
We ought to be deeply grateful for these Treaties. It is true that England has not succeeded in bringing about disarmament, but every child knows that she has led the way. At one moment the party opposite complain that we do not enter every war in Europe, and do their best to put us into it, and the next moment they complain that we have led the rearmament of the world. The right hon. Gentleman who is now facing me knows very well that it was one of the great tragedies that we could not get the other countries to follow us.

Mr. Benn: Since the Noble Lady is so kind as to refer to me personally I should like to ask whether she has heard of the offer which President Hoover made, and it may be that she read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he practically rejected the offer.

Viscountess Astor: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it was only a gesture, that it was not a firm offer from President Hoover. If it had been a firm offer, of course the Government would have had to take it. He knows how difficult it is for a President of the United States—but I do not want to go into that. It was not a firm offer, and there is nobody in the United States who knows both political parties who would say that it was. But what I want to deal with is the way the Opposition talk to-day. They do not trust other countries. They do not trust a soul. They do not even trust their own country. There is not a single person in the world whom they trust.

Mr. Kirkwood: I would trust you.

Viscountess Astor: You can trust me to tell the truth. I think it is absolutely miraculous that our Government have done as well as they have done, in a world like this. What have the Opposition to put in place of this Treaty? Before the evening is out will they tell us what they propose to do? We cannot make other countries disarm. We cannot even make people behave well about Spain. What more could England do? That is what I should like to hear. I am a person who, as a believer in the League of Nations, fought five elections on it, and in a place like Plymouth. Proud as I am of the British Navy, I told them I would rather see no navies, if we could get universal peace in that way. Now I say, "Thank God for the Navy," and hon. Members opposite are in exactly the same position. Although they come to this House and criticise the Navy there is not one of them who does not say in his heart "Thank God we have got a National Government." [Interruption.] Of course they do, and, as I have said, if they go on making speeches like those we have heard to-day we shall have a National Government for ever.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to say a word or two about the Treaty which is before the House, a little matter which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) completely forgot. The Treaty is of such a character that it actually binds no one to anything, and it seems to me that we should be helping towards a better understanding in international affairs if we opposed its ratification and threw it out. That is how I feel about it. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench drew attention to its limitations and said, in effect, that it was only so many words on a piece of paper. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) accepted the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman on this side, but asked us to accept the Treaty because it means nothing. That is the sort of Treaty it is. We shall never get anywhere in international affairs by playing with important questions, and that is the position here. We can only get international treaties which are of any value if they are based on a

correct estimation of the forces which are operating, and giving to the forces which are making for peace the opportunity of laying a basis for peace. What is the use of bringing a group of householders and a group of robbers together and getting them to come to an understanding that they will be nice and civil to one another as the days go by. You can get an understanding among householders to defend themselves against robbers, or an understanding among robbers on the best way of relieving householders of their goods, but you will not get an understanding between robbers and householders which will be of any value.
If we are to make agreements, it is necessary to understand the forces which are operating. The Minister told us that he is hopeful that Japan will see the error of her ways and come in with the rest of the nations. He expresses such sentiments just when Japan has opened fire in China. Is it possible to talk about Japan in such a way, when there has been invasion after invasion of China by Japan? How is it possible to talk in such easy language about the European nations when time and again the word of those nations has been broken without the slightest consideration? If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) does not want to mention names, I have no hesitation in mentioning them. Everybody knows that Germany and Italy have broken their word time and time again in international affairs. The leaders in those countries have said over and over again that it is a desirable policy to trick and deceive other nations. So where is there any value in such a Treaty as this?
The Minister said that we must get rid of suspicion, and that if nothing else were achieved the fact that information was going to be exchanged would help us to get rid of suspicion. An hon. Member who spoke from these benches said that information on matters of naval construction has always been obtained, and therefore the giving of this information is the giving of information which the nations already have. The right hon. Member for Epping said that before the War he made an appeal to the Germans, and that Admiral von Tirpitz responded to that appeal, and that the information given by Admiral von Tirpitz proved to be correct in every way. Did


the giving of information remove suspicions or ease the situation which existed between Germany and Great Britain, or did it prevent the War? All this is so much nonsense, this giving of obvious information. If we are to have treaties, the thing to do is to find out if there are nations which for any particular reason have a desire or a necessity for peace.
Are there nations in Europe which desire peace more than anything else? Are there nations which pursue a policy of aggression? What is the use of talking as though all the nations are the same, when we know such wide divergences exist? What is the use of talking of Japan as though she were as peaceful and as unaggressive as Switzerland? Everybody knows that Japan is aggressive; everybody knows that Germany is aggressive, both on the east and on the west, and must pursue a policy of aggression. Last night the Foreign Secretary spoke about the Japanese problems, and when I interjected a question, said he was referring to economic problems. What is Japan's economic problem? The search for markets for her goods. Let the Japanese feed and supply their own people and they will not have to go out into other markets. Why should all countries be so anxious to get their goods into other countries at the expense of their own people?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Treaty.

Mr. Gallacher: I will come back to the Naval Treaty. I wanted to point out that if treaties are to be made there must be a solid foundation for them and this Treaty has no foundation at all. It is just a feather blowing about in international affairs. Even the Minister was apologetic for it, because it represents nothing of vital importance to the peoples of any country. The thing that is urgent is to have a rapid cutting down of expenditure on armaments and the most widespread expenditure on the building up of home life and human well-being. Therefore, I say that we should throw out this Treaty and seek for an effective one. There should be an endeavour to get together the nations which are for peace. If they were prepared to pool their forces and their resources they could make a

real peace treaty, with real naval and other limitations. An hon. Member told us that he wanted Britannia to rule the waves, and there were general cheers, only the fact is that she does not rule the waves. There is no question of Britannia ruling the waves now.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: The words are, "Britannia rule the waves." It is not "rules the waves."

Mr. Gallacher: It is obvious that any hope of Britannia ruling the waves is ruined and destroyed by the policy of the National Government. Britannia takes a second, or third, or fourth position as far as the waves are concerned. It is obvious that not only have Germany and Italy taken precedence of Britannia, but that even Franco is able to step in ahead so far as the sea is concerned. Time and again we have heard it said that other nations are building up huge armies. What about our big Navy? Germany may have a huge army. France may have a huge army. Why? Because they say their borders are connected with potential enemy countries. We hear statesmen talk about the madness of building up big armies. What about the madness of building up big navies? It is the same thing as the big armies of other countries. There is talk about 16-inch guns. I have information from one whom I consider to be an outstanding authority on the manufacture and the making of guns, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), that at the present time 17-inch guns are being built in this country—not 16-inch. Is that not correct?

Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, it is correct.

Mr. Gallacher: They are naval guns. The Minister is anxious to give other countries information of what we are doing; will he tell us why and for what purpose these 17-inch guns are being built? Information will be given, under this Bill, to other countries, but information asked for in this House will be unobtainable as not in the public interest.
I insist that the Bill is of no value. It is one of the Bills that create an illusion of something being done when nothing is being done. It will not stop the race in naval armaments or reduce expenditure upon them, and it will not bring about a better understanding among the


nations, or take into account those nations who are for peace, and those who are pursuing deliberately an aggressive policy. For those reasons, and because it is of no real value to the people of the world, the Bill should not be supported.

6.48 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his pessimistic outlook on the Bill except to remind him, with regard to the remark he made about aggressive nations, that the most aggressive nation in the world to-day is that nation which stands for world-wide revolution; I mean Soviet Russia. Italy and Germany are not alone to be put into the category of aggressive nations. I have always been opposed to naval treaties because of their hampering and restrictive power over the initiative and the freedom of action of this country to build ships of the size which we require, to the number which we require, and of the calibre which we consider best. That was done away with immediately we signed the Washington Treaty, and later with greater intensity, under the London Treaty of 1930. I realise the necessity for the Washington Treaty, but there was a serious aspect of that Treaty which does not pertain to the present Bill. That was the high limit of 10,000 tons and 8-inch guns for cruisers. The immediate result was, that all nations started to build cruisers of 10,000 tons carrying 8-inch guns. We did not desire to build 10,000-ton cruisers because those cruisers were not satisfactory and were not what we required. They have been a complete failure, but we were only bound to build them as a direct result of the Washington Treaty.
As regards this Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) said it was of little or no use because of the paucity of the signatories, and that there were so many nations outside it that it would be of no use. I would remind him that the London Treaty of 1930 was originally to be a treaty signed by five powers, France, Italy, Japan, the United States and this country, that is to say, all those sea powers who had particular interests in European waters, and in Far Eastern waters. We had a particular interest in both European and Far Eastern waters. We were, as a fact, the only European nation which signed that London Treaty. France and Italy did

not sign it. We were bound hand and foot by it, the only European nation which was so bound. That was a very serious position for us to be placed in.
We must be strong in European waters; we ought to be strong both in European and Far Eastern waters; but by our signing of the London Naval Treaty we threw away any possibility of being so Not only were we limited with regard to the qualitative side but on the quantitative, which was of greater importance. We were restricted in the number of cruisers we could build. I am glad that that is not the case in the Bill. There is qualitative restriction, and in that respect a fundamental difference from the other treaties which I have mentioned. The result of the Washington and the London Treaties, particularly the latter, has been that we have lost our security at sea, and we have had to pursue a weak foreign policy. The Socialist party are continually condemning the Government for our present foreign policy, but it is due to their action that our foreign policy has had to be as weak as it has been these late years. In the past behind the word of the Foreign Secretary has always been the power of this country, but unfortunately we have lost it.
The Government have always been found fault with by the Liberal party as well as by the Socialist party. There is only one Member of the Liberal party here. The Government are blamed for the position in which we find ourselves. They are blamed for not discussing the reduction of armaments rather than introducing this Bill, but the Socialist party must know that we endeavoured to bring about a measure of disarmament in the world by setting an example in that direction. We were told by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton that the race was on, and that is perfectly true, but the race started years ago. We have only just entered the race; we did not start it. We have been compelled to do so for our own security and to increase our naval forces. The Bill and these agreements must be all to the good to the extent that the more we can consult with other nations about what is proposed, the more information we can receive from Government sources, the more trust we shall be able to put in each other. The more we are brought into contact with each other the better it must be.
I welcome the Bill on that account. There is the question of the Germans being able to construct 10,000-ton cruisers. It is a very real point, and will undoubtedly give them an advantage. The question of 14-inch or 16-inch guns is of the utmost importance. Prior to the signing of the Washington and London Treaties, this country had for a long period set an example to the remainder of the world. If you like to put it this way, we gave a lead. We built ships, of the size we considered necessary for the duties they had to perform and the calibre of guns which we desired. Other nations of the world followed our example. We have lost that position, since we signed the Washington and the London Treaties. There has been a good deal of discussion whether 35,000 tons is larger than is required for a capital ship; undoubtedly it is. I very much regret that the limit is 35,000 tons. I understand that Japan is mounting 16-inch guns in her capital ships and that we are going to mount 14-inch guns. America is about to follow the example of Japan. I hope that the First Lord will very seriously consider this matter of 14-inch guns before following the example of Japan and America. It is not only a question of a size of guns but of the size and number of the ships. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) pointed out that if 14-inch guns could be made to pierce the armount of a ship carrying 16-inch guns, it would be better to have 14-inch rather than 16-inch. There are other considerations in this matter such as draught of water, size of docks, expense, etc., which I would have liked to touch upon, but time does not permit me. I hope that the Government will be in no hurry to abandon their decision to mount 14-inch guns. I would be only too glad if we could revert to the ancient policy of building such ships, in such numbers, and mounting such guns as we considered necessary.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I wish to join in the good wishes which have been paid to the First Lord in this, his first essay in his new office. It has been unfortunate that it should be a matter upon which he has not yet got his sea legs. The Bill before us cannot be described as not very important; it is one of the most important

Bills that we have had in this House with regard to our naval affairs since the Washington Naval Treaty. It will have an effect upon our naval strength, and certainly upon the naval strength of the rest of the world. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) always puts into his speeches the breezy atmosphere which we associate with the Service now under discussion. I would point out to him that it is as well to take the trouble to be accurate in the definition of the Naval Treaties to which he has referred. It is not true to say that this country has been placed at a disadvantage with regard to other countries, and I challenge any hon. Member to point out where we have been inferior in naval strength to any other nation.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The point is that by the London Treaty we were limited to 50 cruisers. In accordance with the opinion of the highest naval experts—Lord Jellicoe, Lord Beatty and every single Board of Admiralty—the lowest number of cruisers which we should have to give security to our trade routes was 70. That is the vital point.

Mr. Ammon: That is no answer, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going on from inaccuracy to inaccuracy. There was no question of whether the Navy could do this, that or the other. What he stated was that we were placed in a position of naval inferiority as compared with other nations, and I say without any fear of contradiction that that has not been the case. We have been largely superior to any other European nation and that I say, knowing that a Government speaker is to follow, cannot possibly be challenged. Whether or not we want larger naval forces is a totally different question. I resent very much the suggestion made with regard to a Socialist Foreign Secretary. The late Mr. Arthur Henderson did more to promote peace between the nations, and to make a better understanding and a better atmosphere than has been done ever since, and any suggestion to the contrary is unwarranted and untrue.
There is a humorous touch to this Debate because in every one of the documents which have been supplied to us we see the words, "Limitation of naval armaments." If there is anything this does not do, it is that. There is no sug-


gestion of limitation. There is o restriction, quantitatively, on the size of the Navy. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington agrees, and if I wanted any further authority I have only to remind the House that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) congratulated the Government, himself, and everybody else concerned on this Treaty which was so full of loopholes, bolt-holes, escapes, escalators and everything else. One has only to look at the proposals to see that that is the situation. It was amusing to hear the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) chide this side on being distrustful of every other nation. If there is anything which is based on distrust it is this particular Naval Agreement. None of them is prepared to trust the other. They can come to firm agreements on nothing, and they are going to leave loopholes, bolt-holes and everything else in order that they may be able to escape from the Agreement.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Livestock Industry Act, 1937.
2. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1937.
3. Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, Etc. (Tenure of Office) Act, 1937.
4. Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937.
5. Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
6. Coatbridge Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
7. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Halifax) Act, 1937.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hornsea) Act, 1937.
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Tonbridge Water) Act, 1937.
11. Banbury Waterworks Act, 1937.

12. Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage, Etc.) Act, 1937.
13. London Passenger Transport Board Act, 1937.
14. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937.
15. Wadebridge Rural District Council Act, 1937.
16. Torquay Corporation Act, 1937.
17. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Act, 1937.
18. Bucks Water Act, 1937.
19. Whitehaven Harbour Act, 1937.
20. Woodhall Spa Urban District Council Act, 1937.
21. Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council Act, 1937.

Orders of the Day — LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: Before the interruption I was commenting on the fact that to call these proposed Treaties treaties of limitation shows either an exaggerated sense of humour or a complete lack of it, because that is the very last thing that they are. As has been said already, owing to the various escape Clauses and so on the only limitations are those imposed by the financial resources of the nations or by the wide limits of the ocean. We on this side have a right to remind the House that, but for the action of the present Government in sabotaging the Disarmament Conference at Geneva in 1932 and 1933, it would not have been necessary for us to discuss these Treaties in the House to-night. At any rate, the action of the Government did not encourage the overtures which were made by Mr. Hoover and by Mr. Roosevelt, and which would have gone a very long way to bring down our capital ships to 10,000 tons and to bring about the limitation of armaments in other directions, such as submarines and aircraft carriers. Undoubtedly the present proposals, stripped of verbiage, are proposals once more to commit the nations to a race in armaments.
The First Lord said that the Treaties gave us something solid and practical, but it seems to me that that is just what they do not do. There is nothing solid in something which allows so many opportunities for escapes and evasions on one excuse


or another, and there certainly does not seem to be anything practical when we do not know what our objective is, what are to be the limitations, or with exactly what Powers we are to come to definite agreement. I would press for a little further information with regard to some of the proposals in the Treaty itself, but I want to safeguard myself to a certain extent, and in doing so I take courage from a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, who evidently found himself in the same position as some others of us. These very important Treaties were thrust upon us late last night, so that, speaking for myself, the only opportunity I had of reading them was in the small hours of the morning after the House had risen for the day, and it may well be that one has not thoroughly assimilated all the points in the Treaty, and that, to some of the questions which have been put by my hon. Friends and others, the answers may be found within the Treaty itself.
We are discussing, not only the London Naval Treaty, but also the agreements with Germany and Russia, and it is worth noting that Russia is to have the right to preserve complete secrecy concerning her ships under construction and in commission in Far Eastern waters. That, surely, is a very important point. One can imagine, though we hope it will never happen, that a very serious position might arise when a navy of unknown dimensions and strength has been built with regard to which there is no obligation on the party building it to make any communication to its fellow-signatories. Another thing that is worth noting is that, if Japan should build any ships exceeding the London limits, Russia may follow suit in Far Eastern waters after a simple notification to Britain. To call a Treaty of this nature solid and practical is playing with words.
I want also to ask a question which I think was raised in the first instance by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and which I know was touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher). I want to know whether Germany is entitled to apportion her 35 per cent. of the British tonnage of light surface vessels as she likes among the three sub-categories, "A"-class cruisers, small cruisers, and destroyers,

or whether she is bound to have 35 per cent. of the British tonnage in each sub-category. To put the question in simpler terms, is she bound not to have more than five "A"-class cruisers to Britain's 15, or may she exceed this number by transferring tonnage from other categories? As far as I can see, the Treaty does not contain any provision on that point. If it does, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will point out the place where it is to be found.
Human nature being what it is, it is not to be expected that the opportunity would be missed when one so highly qualified and with such great knowledge of naval affairs as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping slips up with regard both to the equipment and the tonnage of some of our capital ships. It will be within the recollection of the House that he postulated that probably Japan would be able to work out whether or not 35,000-ton battleships would be capable of carrying 16-inch guns. But that has already been solved; we have done it ourselves. The "Rodney" and the "Nelson" are carrying 16-inch guns, and be it noted that the "Nelson," even allowing for the heavier armament, is 1,500 tons under the 35,000, and the "Rodney" about 1,100 tons under. Therefore, I, for one, find myself in the happy position of being able to correct and give information to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping with regard to this very important naval fact. There is another point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton, and on which the House ought to have a direct reply. Will it be communicated to the House when there is to be any departure from the agreement by the notification of one party or another that owing to certain differences, as they see it, in the forces that may be antagonistic to them, they wish to depart from the Treaty? The House ought to be kept fully acquainted with any such occurrences. Otherwise we might, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, be giving all the information abroad and getting none ourselves, and that is a position in which I feel sure we have no desire to be.
While it is true that, having regard to the state of world affairs, we cannot divide, and should not think of dividing, against these Treaties, nevertheless they commit us once more to an unlimited


race in armaments. There will be no limit to the possibilities of naval expansion in the years that lie immediately ahead of us. It was said a little while ago by an hon. Member on the other side that we have made no alternative suggestion. But we have not been responsible for getting the world into the muddle in which it is at the present time, and which, as I have already indicated, was largely caused by the sabotaging of the Disarmament Conference. We have never departed, however, and we do not at this moment depart, from the policy of collective security, which we say is the only alternative. The Treaties that are before us to-night give us no greater measure of security than we had formerly, or than we should have if we were able to come to agreement with other nations through some such body as the League of Nations itself.
While this Bill will go through the House without opposition to-night, at the same time it will go through on the clear understanding that we shall be committed to a very large race in naval armaments. Moreover, under the escape Clause, if any nation has reason to think it is placed in a position of inferiority as compared with a nation with which it is in not quite cordial relations, it can, by giving notice to the other countries, depart from the Treaty and increase its armaments. That does not secure you any assurance of peace. If Italy starts building a very big navy, France will indicate to us that she feels that vis-a-vis Italy she is in a possible state of inferiority, and, therefore, finds reason once more to go forward with a very much increased armament programme, and almost, of necessity, this country will be bound to follow in her train. Like squirrels in a cage we shall go round and round, not finding a stepping-off place, because we have missed opportunities when they presented themselves to enter into bonds which would have bound the nations in some sort of trust and showed that we meant what we said when we went into the League of Nations, that we were prepared to honour our bond and back it on every occasion when there was a challenge to it. Had we done that, we should not be discussing this situation to-night which, difficult as it is, we have to accept because we are faced with circumstances in the world in the main

brought about by the policy of His Majesty's Government.

7.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): While I extend my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for having a naval holiday in the middle of his speech, perhaps he and the House will extend the same sympathy to me in making my maiden voyage in my present office. When I look round and see experts and naval officers, I feel that I have embarked on a very frail vessel. I also apologise to the House for the inconvenience occasioned by the fact that the Anglo-German and Anglo-Soviet Agreements were published only yesterday. I am sure the House will understand that that is not all our fault. We hoped that the Agreements would be signed a week earlier, but there was delay on some technical point, and we got them out at the first opportunity. I have never taken part in a naval Debate before, but I heard the Washington Debate, I think in 1923, and I also heard the Debate in 1930. I have never heard a Debate on a naval Treaty where so many bouquets have been thrown at the Government. My right hon. Friend must feel very proud. Indeed the real attack against the Government came, strangely enough, from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I could not help feeling that everything he said applied equally to Russia. It is the first time I have heard him make an attack on Russia. I hope it will be reported in the right quarter.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last asked me how Germany is to apportion her 35 per cent. in respect of surface vessels. The German Agreement was based on categories laid down in the 1930 Naval Treaty. In our view, the 35 per cent. should cover each sub-category separately, that is, "A" big cruisers and "B" lighter cruisers and destroyers.

Mr. Ammon: The point is whether they can all be in category "A" or whether they are to be distributed over a variety of craft?

Mr. Shakespeare: Sub-category "A" was laid down in the 1930 London Treaty. The definition of light surface vessel is something that has been agreed to since, and did not relate to the particular circumstances of the Anglo-German Agreement.

Mr. Mander: Is that the German view, too?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am speaking of the British view. Many hon. Members have raised the question of the 16-inch gun. I think the House will agree that, if there is a departure from the limitation of 14 inches, it is not our fault. Whether we have 14 or 16 inches is not now really germane to this Treaty. It is a question of naval policy which will have to be considered by my right hon. Friend and the Board. I can assure the House that the experts ale fully seized of the problem. It is a matter of great complexity and one for experts, but preparations are well advanced and the matter is in hand.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) raised the question of the uncertainty of the reservation in the Russian Agreement as regards declaration, notification, and exchange of information in the Far East. The position there is not worsened by the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, the same lack of information would still exist. This is a reservation to which Germany agrees. I understand that Russia in the past has constructed only a limited number of smaller vessels in the Far East. In the Anglo-Russian Agreement it is specifically laid down that Russia will not start a naval race in the Far East unless she is forced to build against outside threats.

Mr. Ammon: The point I raised was that we have nothing to guide us. Russia herself will determine whether or not there has been a violation without our having any further information.

Mr. Shakespeare: If she builds against the bigger vessels built by Japan, presumably she will have to build in Europe and, if she does that, she will notify us in the ordinary way.

Mr. Alexander: I made a particular point when the First Lord was speaking of asking him whether the Treaty referred on the secret side of the Russian position only to building in the Far East. Now the hon. Gentleman talks about building in Europe cruisers for the Far Eastern fleet. I understand, therefore, that the answer that the First Lord gave is not the correct one, and that, in fact, there will be building in Europe for the Russian fleet in the Far East which will not be revealed.

Mr. Shakespeare: What I have said exactly corresponds with what my right hon. Friend said. If Russia builds in Europe for the Far East, she is bound to notify the contracting Powers.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: If machinery is built in Europe and sent across Russia and put together in the Far East, does the same thing apply?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is a new situation. What is built in the Far East is a matter for her own concern, and she is not bound to notify us. What is built in Europe for the Far East—the hon. and gallant Gentleman will draw his own conclusion—is a matter for notification and exchange of information.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) raised the question of cruisers in sub-category "A". I think most of the principal naval Powers have agreed that this particular type of cruiser is an undesirable type of vessel, and it is in this class that we have secured a naval holiday. That is one of the big features of the Treaty. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that modern big cruisers are more up-to-date than some of our 15 cruisers of this type which were built earlier; but, of course, it is the concern of the Admiralty always to see that those of older construction are brought tip to date. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) raised a number of points about the percentages to which Germany has bound herself, and to what classes they apply. Far be it from me to try to instruct a naval officer. It is all plainly set forth in the declaration between ourselves and Germany, and put much more plainly than I can explain it to him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked what do we all get in the way of security for all this money that has been expended. That is a hypothetical question which it is very difficult to answer. If you asked a mother in Bilbao what she gets in the way of security for her children she would say that the millions spent on the British Navy were worth every penny of it, and if the mothers at Bilbao thank God for the British Navy every night, why should not the mothers of England?
The right hon. Gentleman preferred the old method of the Washington Treaty and the method of the Treaty of 1930. I


prefer the 1936 Treaty. May I mention one aspect in which I think it is wiser and safer? In the 1930 Naval Treaty there was no provision for an escape for any of the high contracting Powers even in the event of war: this is put right in the 1936 Treaty. But I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his skill a s a negotiator, could have done better in the circumstances in which we found ourselves. I do not want to argue the merits of quantitative limitation. It has merits and demerits. But whatever its merits it was not practicable seeing that Japan, even if she wanted to have quantitative limitation, would accept no arrangement except on terms to which no other Power would agree, and that France and Italy both found it quite impracticable to have any limitation at all. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman will remember that even under the Treaty of 1930 with which he was concerned, neither France nor Italy agreed to that part of it which limited cruisers. He knows as well as I do that with a large number of Powers participating it is now impossible to get agreement on the question of ratios. Indeed, the introduction of this question itself is, I think, fraught with disadvantages because it cuts right across national prestige.
His next argument and that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell was that there is hardly anything in it. They say that it is negative, and is really not worth much. My right hon. Friend started by saying that he did not wish to exaggerate the benefit of the Treaty, but, at the same time, do not let us minimise it. I will state briefly what benefit the contracting Powers get. The history of races in naval armaments shows that they occur generally in the form of a qualitative race; that competition has always taken place more in the qualitative than in the quantitative sense. In so far, therefore, as we have qualitative agreement, that is a real gain. We have got it in respect of the capital ship, and the aircraft carrier with the displacement reduced from 27,000 to 23,000 tons. We have got the "A" class cruiser held up altogether; we have the large gap of no construction, and we have got, what even the right hon. Gentleman could not secure in the Naval Treaty of 1930—a limitation in the "B" class cruiser, that is, the cruiser under 8,000 tons with a

gun under 6.1 inches. That is a very good thing for ourselves at this moment. We need these cruisers with this calibre of gun to defend our trade routes and our Empire responsibilities. As regards submarines, again qualitative agreement is obtained. Therefore, do not let us minimise the advantages that we get from the Treaty.
As my right hon. Friend said, however, the most valuable effect of this Treaty is the advance notification. The contracting Powers notify their programmes within the first four months of the year. That is new; that provision has never been made in a treaty before, and it is a very great advantage. The House will notice that that notification in itself, coupled with the pledge not to increase the programme until next year, is a form of quantitative limitation for the current year. That, as my right hon. Friend said, will do a great deal towards doing away with suspicion, rumour, gossip and panic building, which are some of the worst features of naval races. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that one of the most valuable arrangements that we have got from Germany under the Anglo-German Agreement the 35 per cent. ratio. It was hoped that they would agree to try to adjust it so as to refer both to under-age and 10 over-age tonnage. That is the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. Germany has now conceded this point, and I should like here officially to pay a tribute to the reasonable spirit in which Germany has entered upon these negotiations. Indeed, at the present moment there is only one kind of armament limitation as regards air, land or sea in the world as far as I know, until the 1936 Treaty is ratified, and that is the Anglo-German Agreement. This Agreement has been scrupulously observed on both sides, and it has been a model. Difficulties have arisen out of it, but they have always been resolved by friendly exchanges, and, indeed, I think, that it is not too much to say that this Anglo-German Agreement has been the pivot round which subsequent negotiations have revolved. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping paid a tribute to the accommodating spirit of the German Government. I can say the same about Russia. Russia has peculiar difficulties,


perhaps, of her own, but she has shown a great spirit of accommodation.
Several speakers, and, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman, think that Article 26 is too loosely framed. Article 26 is the quantitative escape clause. It is framed on the Washington Treaty, not in identically the same words but, more or less, the whole thing has been taken out of the Washington Treaty and put into this one. There is the escape in case of war in Clause 24, and you have under Clause 25 the qualitative escape in the case of non-treaty Powers building ships not within the treaty limits.
Let me express my own view as one who has given some study to this Treaty during the last few weeks. You can either try the method of the straight jacket or the method of the officer who is released on parole. I believe that the method of the officer on parole is preferable to the method of the straight jacket. The very elasticity of this Treaty is one of its main benefits, and I much prefer elasticity to rigidity. I believe that the very liberty enjoyed by the contracting parties will itself develop a sense of responsibility, and, with adequate escape clauses in case their national security is threatened, it will be a long time before any one Power takes the terrible responsibility of starting a naval race. In view of the world situation, I venture to hope that it will be a long time before any Power outside the ring will start a naval race.
Let me make this point, because it is a fair point. Although there are these escape Clauses, it does not mean that the whole naval Treaty falls. It means that in respect of a particular threat by a particular Power in respect of a particular category of ship, the contracting Powers pledge themselves to consult each other. You will have all the machinery of delay and consultation before any action is taken, and then, if necessary, they are free. The delay of consultation and notification comes first. That is a great gain and applies to all the escape clauses, except the war clause. If there is a breach of the Treaty, if there is excessive building either by a contracting Power or a non-contracting Power, it does not mean that the whole garment is lost. It simply means that the stitches are let out in one particular part. That is putting the

safeguard in a fairer and rather a different light from that in which it was put by some hon. Gentlemen.
Finally, I should like to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) in his very excellent speech. He expressed the opinion that this might be the prelude to bigger things. That is the hope, I am sure, of all parties, and it is certainly the hope of the Admiralty and of the Government. It may interest the House to know that in our view this may be the framework of a general treaty. Indeed, negotiations have already been entered into with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Poland and Turkey, and all these Powers have accepted, with a few minor modifications in respect of certain of them, the general principle of the London Naval Treaty which we are asking the House to ratify to-night. Discussions are also being initiated with Greece and Yugoslavia.
Therefore, this modest little Treaty which we are now asking the House to ratify, in view of these negotiations, may well be the prelude to a general treaty, and I believe the fact that there is a measure of elasticity in the general treaty will be an inducement for Powers to come in and to stop in when they get in. As the benefits accrue and we get the exchange of information and the mitigation of suspicion, and the advance programmes notified in the first four months of the year, one can only express the hope that two of the seven naval Powers now outside the Treaty may come into the ring in order to get the benefit of this advance notification and this full information. That is a matter for the future, and one can only express the hope. But I am quite sure that, apart from the merits of this Treaty—and they are many—this method really does promote good will between the contracting Powers. The Anglo-German Treaty is an example of the great change in the relations between the German Admiralty and the British Admiralty, and, as someone pointed out to-day, the position between America and ourselves has completely changed. If America and France have ratified, and Germany and Russia have also given their assent: I see no reason why the British House of Commons, which is responsible for the British Navy, and which has as much to gain as any other Power from this Treaty, should not give a hand in the ratification to-night.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question, as I think it will help to get the question of what Germany may or may not build in surface craft under the 1935 Treaty. If we divide these light surface craft into three categories, "A" cruisers, "B" cruisers and destroyers, and assume, for the purposes of argument, that we have 100 ships in each category, is Germany then allowed to build 105 ships, to divide them up as she likes between the three categories, or is she restricted to building 35 ships in each category?

Mr. Shakespeare: I thought I had explained that matter.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: You did not.

Mr. Shakespeare: I am sorry. The "A," "B" and "C" sub-categories, under the heading of light surface vessels in the London Naval Treaty were subsequent to the Anglo-German Agreement; and the 35 per cent. could therefore relate only to the classification existing at the time of the German Agreement, that is, that of the Treaty of 1930. In our view the 35 per cent. agreement applies separately in respect of sub-category "A" cruisers on the one hand, and sub-category "B" cruisers and destroyers on the other.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — MILK (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of periods for Exchequer payments under SS. 1, 2 and 3 of principal Act.).

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.59 P.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: Since the last General Election on at least 10 occasions in this House the Opposition has protested in the usual Parliamentary form against the continuance of the subsidy to manufac-

turers at a time when the less well-fed sections of our population are unable to get milk at all. We have not been able to get from the Government any reason whatever why they should persist in a policy which is denounced by every educationist without exception, a policy which is denounced by the leading Press organs, including the London "Times," a policy which has been denounced by members of their own Government on public platforms, and a policy which they have never pretended to defend in this Chamber. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in dealing with agriculture have many and very intricate problems to deal with, and repeatedly my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has offered to regard large sections of the agricultural problem as non-controversial and to treat those matters as they would be treated by a Council of State, if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would undertake that the poor and needy sections of our population would at the very beginning receive the minimum physical standard of foodstuffs laid down by the British Medical Association. We have not got that.
The right hon. Gentleman says: "Give me another year and I will produce a long-term milk programme," but in those 12 months thousands of our people will die because of this policy.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman disputes that. Let me prove it. How does he justify a mortality rate of 118 per thousand among the children of Blaenau compared with an average of 59 for England and Wales? That difference is due to poverty. It is not due to the ignorance or lack of sympathy of the mothers of Blaenau for their children, but it is due to their inability to feed them properly. Does he dispute that? If so, we shall be delighted to hear what defence he has. I have here the report of an investigation which has taken place recently in rural Sussex. The Cuckfield Rural District Council made a survey, through their medical officer of health who, with the county medical officer of health, examined 304 children and found that 99 of the children were suffering from subnormal nutrition.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman cannot raise the whole question of nutrition on this Clause. If he directs himself strictly to the question of milk he will be in order.

Mr. Johnston: That is what I propose to do. I have talked about nothing but milk and I do not propose to extend my remarks beyond milk. Milk is the necessary sustenance of babies. I am talking about infantile mortality and sickness, and when I talk about infantile mortality and sickness due to poverty I am talking about milk.

The Deputy-Chairman: So long as the right hon. Gentleman decides to keep to milk he is in order.

Mr. Johnston: That is what in my humble submission I have been doing for the last five minutes and what I propose, with your permission, to continue to do. There are thousands of children who will die because during the next 12 months they cannot get sufficient milk at present prices. On the average the price is about 2s. a gallon for domestic consumption and 1s. per gallon for school children. I have repeatedly drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that a child of five years of age gets milk at 1s. a gallon in school. The Government say that that is necessary and desirable and the Milk Marketing Board say the same thing. I and my hon. Friends want to know why it should be necessary to charge 2s. per gallon for milk for a child at the age of four, 2s. when it is aged three, 2s. when it is a baby and 2s. when it is a toddler, and only 1s. a gallon when it is aged five. It is a simple question and we are entitled to an answer.
I have listened to eight ingenious defences. We have been told that, at any rate, we get cheap chocolate from the milk. I am not saying whether that is desirable or undesirable, but I insist that before we get cheap chocolate it is absolutely necessary that we should have cheap liquid milk in sufficient quantities for the babies and toddlers. We are told that we want milk for export and that we sell 12,000,000 gallons of tinned milk abroad. I know that Czechoslovakia gets a lot of that, but before Czechoslovakia gets tinned milk from this country our babies and toddlers must get the necessary quantities for human consumption. Then we are told that we get cheap cheese and

butter. There are those in this House who are prepared to challenge that argument and who say that the effect of the subsidy on milk for cheese and butter is not so great in the cheapening of price as the right hon. Gentleman has said. The influence of large quantities of cheese and butter from the Dominions has had a considerable effect upon the home price.
It is highly desirable that we should have cheap butter and I rejoice that margarine is disappearing. While it is highly desirable that everybody should have butter, cheap butter, the postponement of a cheap milk supply, particularly to babies and nursing mothers, is indefensible, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not on every possible occasion criticise the Government's milk policy in this respect, and ask the House of Commons to express their abhorrence and detestation of the policy. Let the Minister abstain for once from saying that when a Labour Government were in office in 1931 we had the opportunity of doing these things. I only got £5,000 with which to initiate the milk-in-schools scheme. That was all the money I could get, and I did not get it from the Treasury. It was an experiment. It was the start, and it was on the basis of that experiment that our milk-in-schools scheme has been built up and has justified itself. The milk-in-schools scheme has reached its zenith. There is no increased demand now for milk in schools. It might be that by offering a biscuit with the milk, or by giving hot milk at one period of the year and cold milk at other times, or by flavouring the milk, we might be able to get the children in schools to drink more milk—I hope that we shall—but the fundamental necessity is to deal with children under five and with sick and expectant mothers.
If we can reduce the price of milk to children under five to the price charged to schoolchildren, we can save on the average, to a mother with three children, about 4s. a week. We are told that a child ought to drink at least one pint of milk per day. If there are three children in a home that means three pints a day, or 21 pints a week. We are also told that the nursing mother ought to drink two pints of milk a day, which means another 14 pints per week. If we could supply the milk at the present price charged to schoolchildren, we could increase the purchasing power of many


people in this country by not less than 4s. a week. How can that be done? If the right hon. Gentleman will get his Cabinet colleagues to agree that if a mother is prepared to go or to send to a recognised milk distributive centre, she can get milk at the milk-in-schools price, he could save the cost of distribution, and the thing could be done and done very cheaply.
There is no social reform that it is within the power of His Majesty's Government and this House to bring about that would do more for the health, wellbeing and happiness of the poorer section of our people. It means no revolution, no bloodshed, no economic disturbance It would benefit the farming community, it would increase the steady demand for milk, it would save the taxpayer, who pays £300,000,000 a year in attempts to eradicate disease after disease has accumulated, it would benefit the ratepayers and benefit the community generally. I suggest that if we cannot get a satisfactory assurance from the Minister we ought to divide against the Clause standing part of the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: There is something in what the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has said. The way to get cheap milk is to allow the people to get access to the milk supplies without the intervention of any Milk Marketing Board.

The Deputy-Chairman: That question does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. Macquisten: In that case I will not pursue it, but I would ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to apply to Mr. Gardom of Vancouver, who will tell them all about the mess they are getting into. They had them all over there. It is getting worse and worse. Of course, milk is far too dear: that is what is wrong. People cannot buy it, and I do not believe that you can get them to go and fetch it. I have had experience of that. I know one farmer at Maidstone who when milk was infinitely cheaper than it is now, was prepared to give an allowance of one halfpenny per pint if people would fetch the milk. They would not take the trouble. They preferred Swiss milk because there was sugar in it. This is probably because people nowadays do not

know what good fresh milk is, that they are not keen on drinking what is sold as milk. The milk they get is half-boiled and called pasteurised.

The Deputy-Chairman: This does not arise on the Clause. The sole point is whether there is to be an extension of the payments for milk or not. The argument of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) was that the money would be better spent on something else. We cannot go into questions of policy.

Mr. Macquisten: I have no intention of doing that. I am saying that one of the reasons why milk is not being used is that there is no flavour in it, that the milk is spoilt by the treatment it receives. If you gave that milk away free the people would not fetch it. I know what it is to drink fresh milk, and I know what it is to refuse to drink pasteurised milk. I know the difference. That is what is really wrong. It is a question of whether you can get milk cheap enough and fresh enough. People have lost the taste for good fresh milk, and you will not get them to drink milk until you give them a fresh milk supply. The Minister said recently that without a milk scheme there would be chaos, but it is in more or less chaos just now. The Bill may do a little good, but it is not going to solve the difficulty of getting people to drink more milk. There is only one way in which that can be done and that is by giving them fresh milk and making it accessible at a cheap price. Cut out the distributor. Why not give away the surplus milk? I would rather it should go to the children in the schools if it is fresh. Why should you pay more than the farmer is getting? He is getting I believe 10½d. per gallon and the charge of 2s. is made to the consumer. Where is the 1s. 1½d. going? In London you used to get fresh milk in Hyde Park from cows milked there and the demand was great.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is nowhere near Clause I now.

Mr. Macquisten: I am very sorry. I was following the right hon. Member for West Stirling.

Mr. Gallacher: He was never in Hyde Park.

Mr. Macquisten: He has been very often in Hyde Park. He was speaking about milk being supplied to children at chocolate prices. It would be much better if children were supplied with fresh milk rather than with chocolate: for that is very indigestible. I support strongly the proposal to get fresh milk supplied to the children as cheaply as we can but that is not going to be assisted by this proposal. All Governments, Labour and National, have got into a quandary over this business, and this is to help them to carry on for a bit. I feel satisfied that the whole matter will have to be reconsidered from top to bottom and I would ask the Minister to go out to Canada and find out how these schemes failed there to work. Then I am sure we should get a revision which would be satisfactory and do justice to all parties.

8.22 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: I suppose it is rather an open question whether the Committee should treat this Bill as an interim continuation of the present policy hoping that we shall have a development of policy and machinery in the autumn, or as a peg on which we can hang our particular point of view as to how the subsidy on milk should be distributed. I have not had tea or supper, and that perhaps inclines me to the former course in which it would be wrong to develop the Debate. The right hon. Member who introduced the discussion was quite certain about infants and toddlers, apparently to the exclusion of an all-round free distribution of milk in schools. He said that he was thinking of the infants and the toddlers. I am thinking about them, too, but also about an all-round distribution in schools, treating milk just as you would treat arithmetic, as a thing which children ought to have because it is good for them.

Mr. Johnston: If you have free distribution in schools for all, that does not get a milk supply to the babies.

Sir F. Acland: No, but it is much easier to continue something you are already doing than to set up a new organisation. I think, in the circumstances, although it is eight months since the report was produced, the Minister on the whole is justified in asking that the subsidy should be continued and that certain matters in it should be corrected, with the hope that his final scheme will be all the better for

the delay to which we have agreed, and which makes the continuance of the subsidy ad interim a necessity.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I should like to say a word or two on the plea put forward by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). We have heard many times of the great importance of a free distribution of milk in schools, and I should be the last person to decry any efforts which are made to get milk to the children through the medium of the schools. A great deal of beneficent work has been done through the agency of the schools, but I should like to point out from my own experience and from the discussions which I have had with many people, that the distribution of free milk in schools will not create that permanent appetite for milk which is desired. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) made a great mistake when, referring to the creation of a taste for milk, he suggested that the children should get milk as they get arithmetic and other subjects in the schools. The real problem is not to get milk added as a supplementary item in the diet, merely to make up for a deficiency, but to make it an integral part of every meal at which liquid is consumed in the homes of our people. In my own home, the children never want tea; they have been brought up to drink milk and at the age of 10 and 14 years, they prefer milk to any other drink. With the distribution of milk in schools only, the children are being allowed to develop a taste for other liquids at home, cheap liquids, such as the cheapest of teas, that the poor people can get.
The problem before the Minister and the Government is to provide milk at such a cheap rate that the people of the country can have it as a natural thing and the children can look forward to drinking it. The problem cannot be solved in the schools alone. This short-term policy gives us no confidence that the Government are looking at the problem as a whole. It seems to me to be a scrappy policy, dictated not by the problem of nutrition, but by the problem of selling milk for the farmers. The Government have never dealt with the problem of milk from a nutritional point of view. All that they have done has been to say that the farmers are in difficulties and to try, in a


higgledy-piggledy, empirical way, to get them out of those difficulties. If the Government were looking at the problem of nutrition as a whole, and if they were seriously convinced that this was a first-class social issue, it is clear that they would tackle the matter in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend and make proposals for providing milk at a sufficiently cheap rate for the parents to get it in their homes.
I hope that when the Minister of Agriculture is considering his long-term policy, he will not merely be satisfied with the distribution of milk in schools, but will have regard for the necessity of getting rid of the idea of liquid milk as a supplementary item in the diet, and the idea that the consumption of milk is to make up for the deficiency of poverty in general, as far as the feeding of our children is concerned. Milk must be made an integral part of an all-round diet. If the right hon. Gentleman is to deal with the problem as a whole, there is only one way in which he can do it, and that is to put milk within the range of the purchasing power of our people. I have read every pamphlet that I have been able to obtain about the problem of nutrition, and I resent the imputation that our people are not capable of providing decent meals for their children.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order!

Mr. Cove: I do not intend to pursue that.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not pursue it.

Mr. Cove: I was taking advantage of the opportunity to protest against that, and to say that the problem here is part of the general problem of the capacity of our people to buy milk.

Mr. Macquisten: The milk must be cheaper.

Mr. Cove: The hon. and learned Member supports us, and I welcome his support. It is not often that we find him on our side. We join with him in demanding that the Government, in their permanent policy, should have regard for the fact that cheapness of milk is essential, and that milk should be considered as part of the whole diet necessary for the proper nutrition of our people.

8.31 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: It seems to me rather a pity that we should now be faced with a Bill which carries on, apparently as an experiment for one year, arrangements that have already been tested up to the hilt. I think there is probably no section of school life, and certainly no question of nutrition, which has been so fully tested by the Government as the question of milk, particularly for schoolchildren. From the days when the first Lanark experiment was started until the present time, there have been ample figures to show the effect of the consumption of milk on schoolchildren and the need for this milk scheme. We are now asked to pass this Bill, which again continues the present arrangements for one year. It is always said, of course, that whatever one gives people, they ask for more, but in this case, hon. Members on this side of the House are simply expressing the views of thousands of social workers who are dealing particularly with young children. There is no doubt that the milk-in-schools scheme has added to the health of schoolchildren, but surely at a time when the Government are preaching "keep fit" campaigns and urging us to get everybody really fit for the next war, it is important that we should begin early enough.
Let me first take the question of schoolchildren. I will deal with one section of my constituency; it is not the town of Jarrow, but it is a very poor area. Milk is supplied to schoolchildren there at ½d. a pint. One woman told me that she had three children at school, and that it cost her 2½d. a day for milk, which means 1s. 0½d. a week. Her husband was not under the public assistance committee, as he happened to be at work, receiving a wage 2s. a week less than he would have got if he had been under the public assistance committee. The woman had two children under school age. She told me it was impossible for her to provide 1s. 0½d. a week for milk, but as her husband was not unemployed, the children did not come under the free milk scheme. I saw for myself that the two children who were not at school needed milk even more than the children who were at school, but for milk for them she had to pay at the rate of 2s. a gallon. The chocolate factories can
get milk at the rate of 9d. a gallon, and


cheese factories can get it at 5½d. a gallon. That does not seem to me to be fair.
Hon. Members who take this side of their work seriously—I do not mean hon. Gentlemen on the other side who enjoy 10,000 majorities and turn up at an annual meeting and perhaps at a garden party—and who are continuously in touch with the working life of their constituency and visit infant welfare centres, find that while children are attending those centres and are getting subsidised "Glaxo" or "Virol," whatever it may be, plus either free milk or milk at a very low price, they do very well. But as soon as a child leaves the welfare centre its health shows a downward curve. That curve continues until it goes to school. The children get the milk when it is too late. I would remind the Minister—and this is also an important point for the Secretary of State for War—that it is in those years that the seeds of ill-health are sown in these small children which affects them in later life. I need only mention caries in the teeth.
In that connection, I agree with every word said by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) about fresh milk. I think a frightful lot of nonsense is talked about the dangers of fresh milk, and although I know I shall antagonise all sorts of people when I say so, I believe that pasteurisation has been brought in largely as a convenience to big distributors. My own doctor whom I have consulted on this matter is a woman with a big practice in a poor area, and she says that on the whole, children suffer less ill-health if they get fresh milk, even if they do swallow a few extra germs, than if they never get fresh milk at all. I admit the danger of milk that has "gone off" and the difficulty is that in these poorer homes they have not any means of refrigeration, but the point I wish to make about this Bill is that it leaves a gap between the child attending the infant welfare centre and the child going to school. Milk is badly needed by those children because they are just at the period when their bones are beginning to set and their muscles are tightening and yet the milk which they ought to get is being given to cheese factories and to manufacturers of bric-a-brac at a low price.
The Minister seems to be more and more obsessed with the idea that while there is a large amount of milk to be disposed of, there is something wicked about drinking cheap milk unless under the most carefully controlled conditions. The Government make elaborate arrangements to prevent a man who is on public assistance from getting 6d. more than he is entitled to. In all the Employment Exchanges there are fearsome notices telling people what will happen to them if they do not declare every cent they have. But is any hon. Member going to say that if a child under five gets a pint of milk cheaply, somebody should be sent to prison?

Mr. Macquisten: They are sent to prison.

Miss Wilkinson: I know, and it seems perfectly. idiotic. The friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the farmers, may be fined even yet if they sell milk for human consumption at a cheaper rate than that at which they sell it to the manufacturers and the fine may be £50. Before this administration becomes set in its own way, we have a right to ask the Minister for some guarantee that he will use that powerful mind—which the newspapers of his own Party assure him is the most powerful mind on the Front Bench—to evolve some way of getting this milk cheaply for these younger children. I do not believe that it is in anybody's interest that milk for these very young children should be 2s. a gallon. It is not only a question of the poorest children. The position is bad enough in very poor areas such as I represent, but there are also such people as the clerk who has to keep up appearances on £200 a year and has perhaps two or three children. His wife is at her wit's end to get enough milk for her family. Surely she ought to be able to buy milk as cheaply as Messrs. Cadbury or Messrs. Rowntree. But no, it is said, if you provided this milk for all children you might be giving it to somebody who could afford to pay more. I say, "Why not?" Rather than allow one child under five to go without sufficient milk, give it to Princess Margaret Rose at less than 2s. per gallon. So long as the children have it, what does it matter if some people get it whose incomes are above a certain limit?
Whoever else needs subsidised milk, the balance-sheets of Messrs. Cadbury,


Messrs. Rowntree, Messrs. Nestlé and all the other great milk-using firms, show clearly that they do not need it. I do not mind paying more for my chocolate if necessary, and I am fonder of my chocolate than I ought to be. I would gladly give 6d. a quarter instead of 4½d. if necessary, for my chocolate to enable this milk to be sold for these children instead of being sold to the chocolate manufacturers. But the price of chocolate is falling, although there is no reason why those who are fond of chocolate should not pay a little more for it, while there is every reason why these younger children should have the supplies of milk which are necessary, if they are to lay the foundations of decent health in these most important years of their lives.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Ritson: I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) as to the necessity for creating a taste for milk among the children. I was brought up in an area where the children were given milk from their earliest years and where the children acquired the taste for milk. But how can we expect that taste to be created under the present system? To create that taste you must begin at the beginning. In the mornings I frequently pass by the houses of people like those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson)—the people who have about £200 or £250 a year. Outside each door I see a little milk bottle, more like an egg-cup than a bottle, and that is the milk supply of the family. It makes one despair of getting people to realise that milk is the greatest food which this or any country can have. I agree too with what has been said about pasteurised milk. There are two kinds of milk of which I am horrified: one is Swiss tinned milk and the other is pasteurised milk.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into the merits of those on the question now before the Committee.

Mr. Ritson: As we had already got on to chocolate I thought I might have got in a word about Swiss milk, but I pass from it. I was brought up in a mining area where every miner owned a cow. He attended to that cow as if it had been a human being, he fed it well and it gave results, and every child got milk as soon

as it was able to take milk at all. The man who went down to the pit had his pint of new milk starting for work and another pint of new milk when he finished.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. Member know that if they tried to do that now they would be fined by the Milk Board £5 for each cow?

Mr. Ritson: Well, some of the cows I have seen would hardly be worth £5. I can assure the Minister that there were no ricketty children in that area. I am anxious to get that milk taste, that is so desirable in our large towns, developed. It is pitiful, as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) says, to find even men in decent positions who have neither the desire for milk nor the desire to pay for it, but if we begin to acquire that milk taste—[An HON. MEMBER: "Instead of the whisky taste."] Having drunk a good deal of it at one time, I acquired the taste and had a difficulty in giving it up, but I did give it up, and I am anxious that, instead of the whisky taste, we should develop a taste for something that is solid and good and that will build up a child from its very foundations.

8.47 P.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I cannot follow my hon. Friend on the question of whisky. I understood that it was not an acquired taste, but a gift—a Scottish gift, not a Welsh one. I want to supplement the appeal made by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I understand that the question which we are to decide is whether we will pay, from State funds, a subsidy so that those who purchase milk for manufacturing purposes may get it cheaper. The question therefore arises, Is there some better way, from the standpoint of the people of this nation, in which this money could be spent? My right hon. Friend has urged that a better way to spend the money would be to utilise it as a fund from which cheap milk could be provided for toddlers under five years of age and for mothers. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) made a remark, to which I objected at the time, to the effect, I believe, that one of the difficulties—he thought it was a major difficulty—was that in these days it was very difficult to get people to drink fresh milk, and that they preferred—

Mr. Macquisten: No. The people do not get fresh milk, and so they do not develop the taste for it. They get sophisticated, pasteurised milk, which is half boiled and which has not got a decent taste, and that is how they lose the habit.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister knows very well that this problem of increasing the consumption of milk among children and mothers is a matter of price, at least among the working classes. The other day I called his attention to a report recently issued by the Milk Marketing Board on a scheme that had been adopted and applied to the Rhondda. They decided in the Rhondda that it was desirable to provide cheap milk for children and expectant mothers, and they worked the scheme for a full year, I believe. Now the report has been issued, and it shows that the consumption of fresh milk among the recipients under this Rhondda scheme has increased by 43 per cent. A reduction in the price has meant an increase in consumption of 43 per cent., and who will deny that those toddlers and mothers are infinitely better off for having consumed 43 per cent. more milk in that year than they did before? If the mothers and the children in the Rhondda consume 43 per cent. more milk because the price is reduced, would not that be general for Jarrow, Durham, and all other areas?
I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture whether there was any process by which such a scheme could be applied to other areas, and he replied that there were difficulties. One of the difficulties was that the subsidy for the Rhondda scheme was provided by the Commissioner. Why cannot this subsidy be transferred? Then there was the difficulty of the distributors, but I would urge this question: Are any distributors or any other people to stand between this nation and this job of providing our people with the milk that is required? I share with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) the representation of what we think is the most important county in Wales. It is the largest county geographically, and we think it is the most important in other respects as well. He, who represents the rural side of that county, tells me that our county, which has always been famed for its milk and has now a very high

standard and repute in the milk world, produces 20,000,000 gallons of milk a year. I live on the industrial side of the county, between Carmarthen and the rest of Wales, depressed Wales, Rhondda, Aberdare, Merthyr, Monmouthshire; and some of that great quantity of 20,000,000 gallons of milk produced in Carmarthen is taken to the towns. Carmarthen and Llandilo, where it is manufactured and sold at a cheap price, made cheap because it is subsidised for the manufacture of "Cow and Gate" and other manufactured products, while in my own village 60 per cent. of the people are unemployed. There are poverty, malnutrition, and suffering among the children, and yet we cannot get the subsidy to provide cheap fresh milk for the children living in Burry Port, while the manufacturers in Llanelly, 10 miles away, can get it from the Government.
That is a completely indefensible policy. If we have money by which we can subsidise the supply of cheap milk for manufacturers, surely our children ought to come first. Surely we ought to subsidise human life and not profits, first of all. I have said before that in a report recently issued attention is called to this matter by the committee set up by the Minister of Health to investigate maternal mortality in Wales. Maternal mortality is graver in Wales than in any other part of the country, and it is as grave in the county of Carmarthen as in any other parts of Wales. This county, that is so rich in milk, that produces 20,000,000 gallons of milk a year, that sends its trainloads of milk to London, sends away all the best milk and retains the skimmed milk at home, and I say that the Government ought to bring forward a scheme, not to subsidise milk for the manufacturers, but to subsidise the provision of cheap milk for the mothers and the children of this nation.
I say that the Rhondda scheme is abundant justification for the plea that has been made to-night. It is a matter of price. The mothers and the children will drink fresh milk if they get the chance. I believe it is a taste that can be acquired, and for these reasons I join in the appeal that this nation could spend this money in a far better way, by using it to subsidise the provision of cheap milk, by which we can produce a race of healthy mothers and healthy children,


than by using the money to subsidise manufactures and their profits.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Clause I of this short Bill has provoked a very valuable discussion and an abundant crop of long-term considerations, which will require to be kept in mind when measures of a more permanent character are being framed, but at the present time this Bill, which has now received a Second Reading and Clause I of which we are considering, deals with a very limited subject matter and one indeed on which perhaps little need be said. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who has just spoken, the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), and others have referred to Clause I as if it were giving a subsidy to manufacturers of milk, but, of course, it does not do anything of the kind. What it gives in the first place is not a subsidy, but a guarantee that if the price obtainable for milk for manufacturing falls below a certain figure, Exchequer payments will be available. The money is not payable unless the price of manufacturing milk falls by its own weight below the standard price. This is not a subsidy to the manufacturers of milk. In so far as it is a subsidy, when this guarantee comes into operation, the money is paid to the funds of the Milk Board and forms part of the revenue of the producers of milk.
The hon. Lady may ask how it comes about that the Milk Board themselves are not able to secure remunerative prices for the milk used for manufacture, and why is it necessary that the Government should assist this particular method of disposing of any of the milk? The reason is that there is an immense importation of cheap butter and cheese, greatly to the advantage of the consumer, and it is that importation which fixes inexorably the price that the seller of milk for manufacture can obtain. Our people have cheaper butter than almost anyone else in the world; it is very cheap compared to its price in some of the countries which produce it. It is that cheapness which determines the low price obtainable by the farmer for manufacturing milk. I hope the Committee will understand that this is not a subsidy which you can switch off from one object to another. It is a guarantee of price in certain circumstances to the producer of milk. It

may be asked why it is necessary to guarantee a price to the producers. The fact is that this large amount of milk is available for manufacture, and unless there can be a decent price—

Miss Wilkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to guarantee the price of manufacturing milk, why cannot he guarantee the price of liquid milk for children under five?

Mr. Morrison: That is an entirely different matter from the subject-matter of this Clause. The hon. Lady wants us to depart from the present policy and to introduce a large subsidy in aid of the liquid milk price. That is an entirely different affair and would not be a fit subject for a Bill which is merely a continuation Measure. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said there was nothing about nutrition in the Bill. There are two references to it. One is in the reference to the scheme for providing milk for school children and the additional assistance for that; and the second is in Clause 7 permitting the Milk Board to continue experiments in the distressed areas.
Other hon. Members have spoken as if the fact that we were putting this peg to the price of manufacturing milk meant that we were, as part of our policy, encouraging the diversion of milk from the liquid market to the manufacturing market. There is nothing of the kind. If that had been our policy we have been remarkably unsuccessful in carrying it out. Comparing the first eight months of the contract periods 1935–36 and 1936–37, there was an increase in the liquid milk sales of nearly 11,000,000 gallons, and a decrease in the amount of milk that went for manufacture of 28,000,000 gallons. The increase in liquid sales was 2·9 per cent., and the decrease in manufacturing sales was 13·3 per cent. The object of the Government, as indeed it must be of any Government which works for the prosperity of the country, is to increase the consumption of liquid milk. I hope that I have said enough to show that it is necessary for the economics of the industry that this stop should be placed against the price of manufacturing milk to prevent it falling below a certain level.
There is one point that should be borne in mind when considering schemes of nutrition for the future. The basis of any nutrition policy is an ample supply of


good milk, and in order to get it we must not permit conditions to obtain in the industry that will drive producers out of production. I can conceive that if some policies and views which I have heard discussed and hinted at were carried out, we might easily find a decline in the production of liquid milk which would render nugatory the most ideal plans for increased nutrition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) asked us why it was necessary to have this policy with regard to manufacturing milk. The right hon. Gentleman himself said on 30th October, 1930:
If the milk pool is broken and the liquid surplus allowed to flow, the market price comes right down at once to 10d. a gallon—an unremunerative price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1930; col. 315, Vol. 244.]
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity of preventing the surplus milk being flung on to the liquid milk market with consequences of economic ruin to the industry. That is the same object we are pursuing. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has a definite phobia about marketing boards. I will not discuss the marketing board with which he is acquainted, but I will simply say that the fact that the producers have been able to organise themselves for the better conduct of their industry has resulted in an organisation which is not contrary to the public interest. We should find it more difficult to organise experiments in nutrition, as we have in the past, had we not got these Boards to assist us. No one can say that the Milk Board have not fulfilled their duty with regard to these schemes, both in the schools and in the distressed areas—

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting away from the Clause.

Mr. Morrison: I apologise. I was carried away into the wider regions of debate which have characterised our discussions. I would commend the proposal to the House as a necessary provision to give us time to consider those greater matters which have been referred to.

Mr. Johnston: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down will he oblige us by answering the very simple question which we must have put to him 40 times in this House? Why is it that he subsidises milk in schools for children from 5 to 14 and

will not subsidise it for children from one day old to five years?

Mr. Morrison: I approach the answer to that question with some trepidation, but on the assumption that the question has been ruled to be in order I hope I shall be in order in answering it. The milk-in-schools scheme is a very valuable experiment, but the fact that there is one scheme which is working does not necessarily show that every other scheme can work.

Miss Wilkinson: Why not try?

Mr. Morrison: This is a matter for another policy altogether. It is a question for a long-term milk policy and for consideration in connection with general nutritional questions, and not at all a subject for inclusion in a Bill which merely carries on for 12 months the financial arrangements which have been found to be necessary for existing schemes.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the reasons why this subsidy—he said "If you can call it a subsidy"—should be granted. He said it would support the production of cheese and butter in order to avoid too great competition from outside or from the Dominions. Will he tell us what are the other forms of manufacture which receive the same benefits under this Clause?

Mr. Morrison: Manufactured milk consists of a number of products, but butter and cheese are by far the biggest manufactures. Then there are condensed milk, milk powder and various things like that. A good deal has been said about chocolate, a subject which is naturally an attractive one, but if one looks at the list of products of manufactured milk, if my memory is accurate, chocolate is found listed with a whole lot of other goods made from milk which together do not account for more than .84 per cent. of the milk used for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. Sexton: How many gallons?

Mr. Morrison: 2,720,000 gallons per annum.

Miss Wilkinson: An awful lot.

Mr. Morrison: It is a very small proportion of the total. I can give the figures. This is an estimate of the utilisation of manufacturing milk in England and Wales for the period April, 1936, to March, 1937. Perhaps if I give the percentages it will indicate the position


as shortly as possible. There is used for butter 34·24 per cent., for hard cheese, 25·29, for condensed milk for home consumption 17·86, condensed milk for export 3·25, milk powder 3·41, fresh cream 11·93, bottled cream .12, tinned cream 2·50, ice cream .23, soft cheese .33; and other goods, including chocolate, .84. If we take out butter, hard cheese, condensed milk for home consumption and fresh cream, the other milk products represent a practically negligible proportion of the total milk used for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. A. Jenkins: What is the quantity of milk used for manufacturing purposes other than butter, cheese, etc.?

Mr. Morrison: Roughly it is about one-third of the total. There are 111,000,000 gallons for butter, 82,000,000 gallons for cheese, 57,000,000 gallons for condensed milk for home consumption and 38,000,000 gallons for fresh cream. If the hon. Member is interested in the actual gallonage of manufacturing milk I can look it out, but it was recently about one-third of the total gallonage. Our experience of the last eight months shows that the use of milk in factories has decreased.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 114.

Division No. 298.]
AYES.
[9.11 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Dyke Dawson, Sir P.
Hunter, T.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
De Chair, S. S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Denville, Alfred
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dodd, J. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Apsley, Lord
Doland, G. F.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Keeling, E. H.


Assheton, R.
Drewe, C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Eastwood, J. F.
Kimball, L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Eckersley, P. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Ellis, Sir G.
Latham, Sir P.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Emery, J. F.
Lees-Jones, J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bernays, R. H.
Errington, E.
Lewis, O.


Bossom, A. C.
Everard, W. L.
Liddall, W. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Lipson, D. L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fleming, E. L.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Brass, Sir W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Furness, S. N.
Loftus, P. C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lyons, A. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Bull, B. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Burghley, Lord
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cary, R. A.
Granville, E. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Magnay, T.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Maitland, A.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Channon, H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Markham, S. F.


Christie, J. A.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Mareing, A. C.


Cox, H. B. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Critchley, A.
Higgs, W. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Nall, Sir J.


Crooke, J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hopkin, D.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cross, R. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Crossley, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Peake, O.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hulbert, N. J.
Peat, C. U.




Perkins, W. R. D.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tate, Mavis C.


Petherick, M.
Salt, E. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Scott, Lord William
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Selley, H. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Porritt, R. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Radford, E. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Turton, R. H.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Ramsbotham, H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ramer, J. R.
Spens, W. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Storey, S.
Wragg, H.


Rosbotham, Sir T.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Rowlands, G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)



Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N,


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton. T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silkin, L.


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mander, G. le M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.



Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill, Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of definition of cheese-milk price and provision for butter-milk price.)

9.21 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "September," and to insert "July."
I apologise for the necessity of introducing a manuscript Amendment. I need

not trouble the Committee with the whole of the tangled story of the cheese-milk price, but I would remind hon. Members that Parliament attempted in 1934 to fix a standard price for milk sold for manufacture. Parliament proceeded to arrange for the payment out of public funds of assistance to the producers of milk, used for manufacture, which was sold at a very low price. The form of the financial arrangement is important. Parliament took the formula contained in the


current milk contract, as an indication of what the Milk Board might expect to get for its milk sold for manufacture, and arranged for payments to fill the gap between what I call the formula price and the standard price.
The Milk Board is governed, like other producers' organisations, by the Agricultural Marketing Acts, which contain a number of provisions for safeguarding the interests of the consumer. This machinery was invoked by the manufacturers who complained that the prices determined by the formula in the contract and in the Act for cheese-milk was so high that they could not afford to pay it if they were to compete with the imported article. The Committee, after long investigation, found that the price was too high, not on the grounds that the producers were getting too much, but on the simple ground that the ruling prices of milk products imported from the Dominions and overseas were such that manufacturers could not be expected to pay the price laid down in the formula. By this time, the last piece of legislation extending the Milk Act had been passed, in March, 1936. The result has been that since the new price which the Board are receiving is less than the formula price defined in the Act, the Milk Board are not getting, with the Exchequer assistance, the standard price. The assistance which can be paid to them is still limited to the difference between the formula price and the standard price, but that formula has no longer any bearing on what the Board actually receive for manufactured milk.
The Government have taken the present opportunity of attempting to cure this anomaly at the earliest possible moment. The Bill proposes to introduce a new cheese-milk and butter-milk price from 1st October, that is to say from the commencement of this Measure and the expiry of the Act now in force. Upon consideration of the whole matter it seems to me, as I have told the Committee, that we should put the matter right at the earliest possible moment, which is not, strictly speaking, 1st October, but when this Bill becomes law, and that is about 1st August. Certain hon. Friends of mine have upon the Paper Amendments which, if they were carried, would antedate the new formula to 1st April last, but I cannot accept that proposal, of course. That sort of way of dealing with the matter means going back and im-

posing a liability on the Exchequer which did not exist before this Measure passes. The earliest possible moment after the Bill is passed on which the new formula can be brought into operation is 1st August, and I suggest that that is a just way of settling the matter. The effect of ante-dating this by two months will be as follows: The boards—the producers of milk—instead of having to repay £80,000 during August and September will receive £50,000 for the two months. That is a sensible arrangement from the point of view of all concerned and I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Since this Amendment is strictly in accordance with the promise made to one of my hon. Friends on Second Reading we see no reason why we should oppose it. It is correcting an anomaly or misunderstanding and, while we have just voted against any subsidy for manufacturing milk while there are so many women and children unable to buy liquid milk, we feel that as the Act has been passed it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to correct at the earliest moment a misapprehension.

9.27 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: From one point of view this is an extra subsidy and it might be expected that those who sit here, who have generally taken a line against subsidies, would vote against it. If the Government were proposing to put in a new principle or to extend some principle in the original Bill we should probably have to do that, as we voted against the extra wheat subsidy the other day because we did not think that there was a justification for that. But this is to get back for a couple of months earlier than would otherwise have been to the idea which was in all our minds when the original Bill was passed—namely, roughly, that the producer's price should be made up to fivepence or sixpence as the case might be. That being so, as this only restores rather earlier than otherwise would have been the system of paying to the principle we all thought was being adopted, it seems to me that that is a perfectly reasonable arrangement of which to approve.

9.29 p.m.

Major Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith: I and my hon. Friends were going to move an Amendment and plead that the House


should go a little further in trying to carry out the original intention of the first Act, and I had hoped to be able to produce a case which would have wrung the hearts of those who are inclined to be a little unbending towards the farmers, but whether it would have done more than wring the hearts I do not quite know. But after listening to my right hon. Friend I am forced to the conclusion that a little concession granted is worth more to the milk producers than even the forlorn hope of trying to go through the Division Lobbies. I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment, because there is equity behind it and the Minister is doing the right thing, as far as lies in his power, to give effect to the original intention of the 1934 Act. If the Committee will accept this Amendment it will relieve me of a great responsibility because I will not feel that I have to propose the two Amendmentc which stand in my name.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Price: I am very glad that the Government have made this offer and I am very glad that so far it seems to be satisfactory to those Members concerned on the producers' side. I feel that there is this aspect too which ought to be considered. There is no doubt that many of those who are manufacturing cheese and butter have for the last six months been getting their raw material exceedingly cheaply. It may be that they have foreign competition to meet, as the Minister said, but I would like to call his attention to this fact. I know it is the case that the Milk Marketing Board have had difficulties on certain occasions in supplying sufficient liquid milk for the milk-in-schools scheme, schemes for the supply of milk in factories and other welfare schemes because so much milk has been monopolised by the manufacturers. At the time when milk production goes down, at the back-end of the winter, there has been a definite shortage. The result has been that the Milk Marketing Board have had to go cap in hand for their own milk to some of the manufacturers, who have been ready to release the milk only at a premium. That is a situation which ought not to be allowed to continue and if this proposal does something towards that end it will be a good thing.
The Bill by setting up a new basis for the calculation of the manufacturing

price of milk is right, but the Government are proposing to do something to put right the injustice which producers have suffered from for the last six months, amounting to more than the Government have agreed to give.

9.33 P.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I support this, too, because the Government have laid heavy burdens on the backs of the milk producers. They have to bear all the vast cost of these officials. We have experience of them in Scotland. On fine days they can be seen coming down in crowds; on wet days they stay in. It is only right that the Government, who have subjected the producers to this system, should contribute as much as possible. The Minister has spoken about marketing boards and marketing schemes. If he would pay a visit to Canada with the Secretary of State for Scotland and get information there about marketing boards—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that.

9.34 P.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: As my name appears on the other Amendments I would like to say that agriculture still maintains and believes in the justice of the claim put forward in the other Amendments. It believed that it was the real intention of the House that that claim should be met. The Minister has told us that we cannot have retrospective legislation in this case. He gave a pledge on the last occasion that he would put this right. He is doing so.

Mr. Gallacher: I am troubled about the general unanimity on this question of an aded grant to the farmers. I am not opposing, but I want every Member to take note of the general unanimity and to ask that when Members are discussing other questions, such as old age pensions and unemployment relief, the same spirit of big-heartedness which has been expressed to-night will be shown to the poor, who are in actual need.

9.35 P.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Could I ask the Minister a question? In his speech moving this Amendment he referred continually to the formula price and he said that the price really depended on the low price of dairy products in this country. The


Minister has repeatedly stated, during the discussions on the Bill, that the low price is practically due to what it used to be the fashion to call dumping, namely, the fact that producing countries put their dairy products on the market at a price lower than that at which they are selling them in their own country. Is not that true as regards Italy, Denmark—

The Deputy-Chairman: I hardly think that that question arises on this Amendment.

Miss Wilkinson: With all respect, I want to get at the question of the formula price. In this Amendment we are being asked to alter the date of the formula price because of certain calculations, but may I suggest, with very great respect, that it is important that we should know, before we alter the date, how this formula price is arrived at, in order that we may see whether this particular date is correct? I should like to ask the Minister also whether he is doing anything at all to improve the efficiency of dairying and milk production in this country, so that we are not actually penalising profits which are really the result of organisation, and bolstering up by the Bill a price which is in fact only so high because of the inefficient and wasteful competitive production of milk that we have in this country. It seems to me to be on that point that the whole of the Bill really rests, and, beyond vague compliments, which are always paid to the farmers of this country, we have never heard from the Minister whether in fact he is satisfied that the method of producing milk in this country is really as efficient as it ought to be if it is to compete fairly with much more efficient dairy producing countries like Denmark and Sweden.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I have explained the formula price in previous discussions, and the hon. Lady will find it accurately described in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Milk Act, 1934, which shows how it is linked up with the prices of New Zealand and Canadian cheese. With regard to the general question of efficiency, we are certainly doing what we can to improve our own agricultural industry, but I would point out that on the manufacturing side there exists a very valuable check as to the efficiency of milk

manufacturers in the possession by the board of their own factories. They are able, by operating themselves, to check costs and improve efficiency in the manufacture of milk. The improvement of efficiency in any industry is a continuous process, and, although I admire the way in which many of our producers are meeting their difficulties in producing their milk and other dairy products, I still think we should never rest quite content, but should seek after ever higher standards of efficiency in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 24, leave out "September," and insert "July."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Payments by boards to registered producers in respect of milk sold at a reduced price.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.41 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Again I desire to ask the Minister for information. It seems to me that under Clause 7 it is possible for the Minister to extend the scheme with regard to registered producers at a reduced price in such a way that it would be possible to sell milk at a reduced price to nursing mothers and mothers of children under five. I rather gathered, from what the Minister said on Clause 1, that that would not be possible under this scheme. He rather suggested that we were bringing in extraneous matter on what was merely a continuation Bill. It seems to me, however, that if under Clause 7 there are to be arrangements
for the sale by registered producers, at a reduced price, of any quantity of milk produced in the area to which the scheme applies,
it would be quite possible to say that any scheme applies, and that, if the Minister desired to extend the milk scheme so as to include children under five, it would be possible under Clause 7 of the Bill. Have we not, therefore, a right now to ask the Minister whether he suggests that it would be possible to make such an extension? If so, why did he say that this was merely a continuation


Bill, and that therefore it could not be done? It seems to me that we have here all the machinery that is necessary to undertake what we asked should be undertaken when we used Clause 1 as the peg on which to make that request.

9.43 P.m.

Mr. Morrison: Clause 7 deals with the machinery by which the Milk Board is enabled to participate in schemes such as those which are in operation in Jarrow, and other parts of the special or distressed areas. These schemes have been in operation for some time, but doubts have been expressed as to the legal position of the Board in relation to these payments, and advantage is being taken of the present opportunity to put that matter beyond doubt, so that the Board will be able to continue these schemes and, if possible, to increase them.

Mr. Jenkins: Does that mean that no further scheme of that kind could be undertaken without fresh legislation?

Mr. Morrison: It does not mean that at all. It means that the present schemes have their legal validity put beyond all doubt so far as regards the payments to them by the Milk Board. As regards the larger question of nutrition policy, as I tried to indicate earlier in the Debate, this would involve a decision as to what form the policy should take and it would have to be dealt with as a separate matter involving far more than agricultural considerations. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the principal Act lays down a limit of money. It states that not more than £1,000,000 in the aggregate shall be expended under the Sub-section, and that provision ties the expenditure down in the meantime to certain schemes.

9.44 P.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Since the only limit is the financial limit, would it not be open to the Government, if sufficient pressure were applied, to extend the operation of Clause 7 by bringing in a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Morrison: It would not be done by a Supplementary Estimate. The limit which exists in Section 11 of the principal Act could not be got rid of without fresh legislation, amending that Section of the Milk Act, 1934. The question whether this would be the proper and best machinery, if schemes of the

character to which the hon. Lady has referred were entered into is, of course, another question.

Mr. Jenkins: Has the whole of the £1,000,000 allowed for this purpose been exhausted or, if not, how much of it?

Mr. Morrison: There are contributions made to these special schemes by the Board and by distributors and so on. I could not say how much money is left.

Mr. Jenkins: The £1,000,000 is provided from Government funds.

Mr. Morrison: I could not give an accurate figure. This Clause is merely to continue the power of the Milk Board to contribute to these schemes.

Miss Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman said it is not possible to give us what is the vital thing under these schemes when he has a whole collection of experts there. If under that box they have not the exact figure, someone ought to be sacked. Before we can possibly pass this Clause, to which I have no objection whatever, and which I am most anxious to see passed, we ought to have this information. The Minister has done nothing but evade questions. He has done it in the most charming possible way, but he has evaded them. Will he send his Parliamentary Private Secretary to that box and ask how much of that £1,000,000 has actually been spent?

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: I am very surprised that the Minister cannot give us this information. Someone in that box ought to be able to tell him how much has been spent. It is most amazing that we cannot get accurate information. The Minister has suggested that I should put down a question, but that would he much too late. It is of very considerable importance that we should get the information before the Clause is passed. I hope the House will express its dissatisfaction, perhaps not with the Minister but with those who are here and who cannot supply us with the information.

9.49 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams: At the end of the second year following the operation of the 1934 Act was not some statement made as to the exact proportion of the £1,000,000 actually spent upon cheap milk for


elementary school children and the amount devoted to advertisements and expenses and experiments? Some such statement must have been made at the end of the two-yearly period. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have it at his disposal when we are extending the same scheme, so that we should know whether or not the total sum has been called for or whether a less sum would have been necessary.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) as the Noble Lady. It is evident from the discussion of the last few moments that
Kind hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood,
because my hon. Friend has shown a touching belief and a simple faith in the capacity of the Government to answer simple arithmetical questions which only a person of the class referred to by Tennyson could possibly have achieved. It is really astounding that this quite simple question, which one imagines the Minister had to take into consideration before he decided to put the Clause into the Bill, should have caused such consternation. I do not call for the dismissal of the Civil Service. They are in the box while the Minister is in the cart. I imagine that two or three of them wish they were in his place, so that they could give us the one figure for which my hon. Friend asks. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is himself endeavouring to secure the figure. I can only hope that we shall now receive it. He is not treating the Committee with respect in declining to give us the very simple information for which he has been asked.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: A little confusion has arisen because of the reference in the Clause to Section 11 of the principal Act, which permitted contributions from the Exchequer towards the expenses of the Milk Marketing Board. The figure of £1,000,000 was inserted as a maximum which must not be exceeded—a contribution for the milk-in-schools and other schemes at the rate of £500,000 a year. The money that has been voted for that purpose in the past will have been spent by the end of the present year, and we are providing in the Bill for £500,000 to

carry on that assistance at the same rate for the 12 months ahead of us. With regard to the other schemes of assistance for cheap milk for Jarrow and Rhondda, that is a matter that lies to some extent outside my purview, except in so far as the Milk Board has contributed towards the expenses. In these cases there is no Government money properly so called at all. The funds for these schemes are made up from three sources, the Milk Board, the distributors, who accept a lower margin of cost for distribution and, thirdly, assistance from the Commissioner for Special Areas. It is Government money indirectly, but it has nothing to do with the £1,000,000 in Section 11 of the 1934 Act. That refers to the expenditure for milk in schools, etc., at the rate of £500,000 a year for the two years over which it was to run originally.

9.54 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Surely the Minister has now made things worse. He referred earlier to the rigid limit of £1,000,000 and, when we asked him how far we could possibly extend the scheme and the arrangements that were being made, he said the limit was the £1,000,000 granted under Section 11 of the original Act. Now he says that will all be spent by the end of the year. That is connected with the school scheme, and there is some unspecified amount, which he says he does not know, which deals with the Jarrow and Rhondda schemes. When he says that the Government have nothing to do with that, and they are not Government schemes, I would ask, have not the Government everything on earth to do with the Milk Marketing Board? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Really, this Government spend their time in pumping life into the Milk Marketing Board and in providing subsidies for them, and what on earth is the object of this Bill, if it is not to give more life to the Milk Marketing Board? Does the Minister say, in respect of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, that the money upon which he operates is not actually Government money? To whom has the Commissioner to look for money but the Government, except to a few charitable arrangements like the Nuffield Trust?
This is not good enough. This House is the custodian of the public purse and has a right to know how much money is being spent from Government sources on


the Rhondda and the Jarrow schemes, and to what extent it is possible to extend the scheme under Clause 7. I would like the Minister to reconcile his previous statement that the £1,000,000 for two years was a rigid limit, with his statement now, that there is an unspecified amount. What we are anxious to get at is to what extent it is possible to extend Clause 7 to other areas than Jarrow and the Rhondda. Even in my own constituency Jarrow is not the only area. There are pockets of poverty, even worse than Jarrow, and I am determined that the House shall know something about them. We want to know to what extent the Clause can be extended. May I for the third time to-night, as the Minister has been across to that Box and obtained one alteration of the original statement that he made, suggest that he should ask his Parliamentary Private Secretary to go and find out the further information?
The Minister shakes his head, but I must appeal to him. We really have a right to know, and the Minister knows perfectly well that the figures can be obtained. The Minister says that if we put down a question, he will give the answer, and that means that the figures are available in his Department. I have been a Parliamentary Private Secretary myself and I know that every figure that can conceivably be asked for in this Debate is in the hands of the civil servant. I was not really suggesting that one of them should be sacked, but that the sacking should come nearer home than that. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of these schemes so that we may know to what extent they can be extended? Surely that is a most reasonable request.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that the Committee will not think that I am unreasonable. As I explained, the schemes in which the hon. Lady is particularly interested are the schemes in the Special Areas, and it is to these areas that she is directing the attention of the Committee. I told her that Clause 11 contained the limit of the £1,000,000 provided in the original Act, and that that is for assistance for milk for schoolchildren. As I have already explained to the Committee, the moneys for the Special Areas schemes are derived from three sources.

I am not responsible for the Commissioner for the Special Areas. I do not carry his expenditure in my head, nor is it in my Department, and if information is desired from the Commissioner for the Special Areas, the hon. Lady should address her question to the proper source.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister tell us what amount of the £1,000,000 for milk in schools has been spent?

Mr. Morrison: I told the hon. Member that the money that was voted last year for this scheme will be spent by the end of this year. It is being spent at the rate of £500,000 per annum, and that is the reason why we are asking for authority to spend another £500,000 during the time ahead of us. The actual state of the fund must vary from day to day, and I do not know what the hon. Member wishes more than that. The funds of the Milk Board are their own concern. The funds of the Milk Board are of the value of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 a year, and the milk they handle comes from the producers for whom they are administering this matter. As regards any other source, the distributors contribute towards it in their own particular areas. If the hon. Lady wishes for information concerning the funds at the disposal of the Special Commissioner she should ask my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Jagger: Who audits the accounts of the Board?

Mr. Morrison: A firm of auditors.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — COAL (REGISTRATION OF OWNER SHIP) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE I.—(Registration of particulars of ownership.)

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "therewith," to insert:


including particulars of wayleaves surface and underground.
We are anxious to secure that the register should not only contain the particulars of ownership of coal, but also particulars of ownership in regard to wayleaves both on the surface and underground. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading, it appeared as though it was directed only to the registration of owners of coal. On the front page of the Bill which contains the Financial Memorandum it says:
The object of this Bill is to enable the Board of Trade to register particulars of the present ownership of coal.
I believe that there must have been a mistake in the drafting of the Bill in limiting it merely to the registration of the ownership of coal because for many years miners have not only had a grievance against royalty rents and have argued and agitated for the abolition of royalty rents, but they have also coupled with royalty rents wayleaves. We believe that wayleaves ought to be abolished just as royalty rents ought to be abolished. Therefore, seeing that the Bill merely provides for a register of the owners of coal, we want it to be provided that the register shall also include the owners of wayleaves, on the surface and underground. I should like to give a typical case so that the Committee will see how urgent is this matter. Two years ago in the county of Durham a coal company went before the Railway and Canal Commission with a view to getting relief from wayleave rents. The coal trade was not doing as well then as now, and the coal company found the pressure of the high rents for the wayleaves which they had to pay so severe that they decided to go before the Railway and Canal Commission to seek relief from those rents. I cannot do better than read a statement sent out by the company after the case had ended:
Application by the Consett Iron Company, Limited, before the Railway and Canal Commission for relief in the matter of rents for wayleaves for use of surface lands used as a railway between (a) the Iron Company's collieries and its loading place on the River Tyne, (b) between its collieries and its coke ovens and bye-product plant at Derwenthaugh, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and (c) between its collieries and access to the North Eastern Railway.
The short facts set out in the application show that:


(1) The railway was made by the Iron Company and is maintained and worked by it.
(2) There is no other way to get the coal from its collieries except by means of way-leave lands.
(3) The lands belonging to the lessors are about 27 acres, and are worth at a full letting value, plus allowances for disturbance, less than £5 per acre per annum.
(4) The Iron Company endeavoured to buy the lands and offered a high price, but the lessors refused to sell.
(5) The company paid during the period from 1st January, 1890, to 31st December, 1931, to one lessor a total of £97,872, and to the other lessor for the same period, £66,601, making together a total of £164,473. This, divided by 27 acres"

which was the amount of land they were using—
was a total of £6,092 per acre, without interest.
Although the letting value of the land was about £5 an acre it cost the coal company £6,092 per acre. The company went on to say:
So long as the collieries continue working these payments, at the present time about £6,000 per annum, would have to be paid unless the relief sought for could be obtained.
The company went before the Railway and Canal Commission and the Commissioners granted relief, ordering that the rent to be paid in future should be £10 per acre per annum, amounting for the 27 acres to £270 per annum, and an order to that effect was issued. The lessors appealed to the Court of Appeal and by a majority the Court of Appeal was against the Railway and Canal Commissioners, with the result that the coal company has been doomed to continue to pay at the higher rate.
Miners are affected by a question like this because these rents have to come out of miners' wages. Before there is any opportunity of the miners getting any wages these rents for wayleaves have to be paid. This is a typical case of many others that could be quoted, and we contend that these excessive rents for way-leaves whether on the surface or underground should be done away with. The company is in the hands of the lessors and they must pay the rent or close the colliery. With regard to wayleaves underground a colliery may be working one piece of coal and they may have to bring it over somebody else's coal in order to get it to the surface. In doing so those who own the second parcel of coal insist


upon a wayleave being paid for the carrying of the coal from where it is being worked to the pit shaft.
Miners have conducted a long agitation for the abolition of royalties, believing that royalties were wrong and that they did an injury to the miners, and just as we have conducted that campaign for the abolition of royalty rents we think that wayleaves also should be abolished. Therefore, I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment so that it can be provided in the Bill that the register when completed should be a register not only of the owners of coal but also the owners of way-leaves, so that we may have the way-leaves abolished along with the royalty rents.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I desire to support the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it. This is a machinery Bill designed to acquire information in order to make easier later on the passage of another Bill, which we cannot anticipate and discuss to-night. I want to support what has been said by my hon. Friend. Those of us who have spent our lives in this industry know, speaking for both sides, that the rents and wayleaves are often even more onerous and aggravating than the problem of the royalty owners. It is rather difficult to find out what the wayleaves and rents represent. I have been making a calculation. In a statement to the tribunal, which was accepted on both sides, it transpired that the average annual rents paid in royalties in this country was £4,430,000. I assume that that figure excludes the amount paid in wayleaves and rents. Therefore, I have calculated that the average amount paid in the total for royalties and way-leaves in the last 15 years is not less than £5,655,000. If we deduct from that the £4,430,000 paid in royalties it leaves £1,225,000 which is the amount paid in wayleaves and rents in the coal industry. We who are interested in the men's side of the industry have asked for a measure of this kind for a long time. All these items go on production costs against the wages of the men, and it is not a matter of theoretical nationalisation but of daily bread for the people we represent. Therefore, we want this information to be collected. My own view is that any attempt to put in force any scheme for

the nationalisation of royalties, if it leads to changes in the industry, may be rendered nugatory by these very way-leaves. Unless power is taken now it will be impossible to deal with this problem. Merely to make coal itself national property and to leave alone all these things which surround coal, the wayleaves underground and the wayleaves on the surface, is merely to deal with one half of the problem. For these reasons I support the Amendment and hope it will be accepted by the Minister.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I do not rise to speak as to the desirability or not of putting in wayleaves either on the surface or underground, but to ask whether or not that question is not already adequately covered by the provisions of the Bill. The Bill says that in addition to the proprietory interests in coal there shall also be registered:
the property and rights which are held in association with such coal and mines or any of them and in which the holding subsists.
A wayleave is a right of way, either above ground or under ground, and it is obviously a property or right which is held in association with coal where that right of way is enjoyed and is attached to the ownership of coal. Secondly, hon. Members will also see that the register will include
the servitudes, restrictive covenants and other matters subject to which the coal hereditaments in which the holding subsists or any of them are or is held.
Therefore, whether they hold coal subject to a right of way belonging to some other coalowner they will have to register that adverse right of way. I suggest that the one exception to rights of way which are enjoyed not in respect of holdings of coal but rights of way which are enjoyed in respect of some surface rights which do not come into this Bill, is the only exception to the rights of way which hon. Members opposite suggest ought to be registered. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment is not really required, and if we add to the register every single right of way enjoyed by the owners of coal in respect of coal property you are going to acid a great number of details which delay registration in many cases, and I doubt whether they would be of any great value for the purposes of the next Bill.

10.19 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am fortified in what I was going to say by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), because he has made the position much clearer than I can. The purpose of the Amendment is already covered by the requirements of the register now and it is therefore redundant. It is not a desirable thing in a general drafting sense to put them in because if you make a specific reference to one example you give the appearance of limiting the scope of the Clause. On these grounds the Amendment is unnecessary, and I hope the Committee will not accept it.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I wonder whether the Minister, before giving his reply, considered the possible danger in cases such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The words:
The property and rights which are held in association with such coal and mines
give one the easy impression of embracing these things, but in different parts of the country, where the distances are rather long, a wayleave may be operated as an easement or other right of way over land a considerable distance from the pit. I am not sure whether that is satisfactorily covered by the Bill as it stands.

10.21 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I am not entirely satisfied by the Minister's statement. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said that the drawback of putting in the words of the Amendment is that it would take time and would add to the difficulties of registration. Speaking as a royalty owner and a coalowner, I consider that this is a very serious matter. If this registration is to be of any value, it must cover all the points. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford gave as a reason for not accepting the Amendment the fact that it would complicate the registration and take time, but surely that is not a sufficient reason. Anybody who knows anything about this registration knows that the question of wayleaves is most important. It is not clear from the Bill that the wayleaves are included. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be far more clear that the question of wayleaves was being fully dealt with.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put a concrete case to the Minister with a view to finding out whether what we have in mind is dealt with? In the area from which I come, where anthracite is very largely the coal that is worked, there are cases where a slant is driven into barren ground right into the mountain until eventually coal is reached. The owner of the land at the mouth of the slant is not the same person as the owner of the coal. There is a lease by which the owner has the right to work the coal and pay a royalty, and there is also a wayleave paid for the adit or level. Would that adit or level come under the term:
Certain property and rights held in association therewith"?
There is also the case referred to by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). I would like to have an assurance from the Minister as to whether two cases of that sort are covered.

10.24 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has really dealt with this matter quite satisfactorily. He seemed to be in danger of doing what I am afraid the House often does, that is to say, accepting an assurance that something will be interpreted as we wish it to be interpreted, which assurance leads afterwards to endless litigation. The courts might eventually find that the assurance was not accurately given, not because the hon. and gallant Gentleman or his Department wanted to give an inaccurate assurance, but because the courts happened to take a different view. Every hon. and learned Member knows that that sort of thing has constantly happened. Surely this is a case where it is desirable—and apparently everybody is agreed upon that—that these things should be included, and it cannot possibly pass the wit of the draftsmen to make it abundantly and indisputably clear that they are included. It is that for which I understand my hon. Friends are asking. It is clear from what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said that, in his view, the addition of these words would add further obligations as regards registration. Then his argument that this will only delay the registration is a very poor one—

Mr. Spens: A right of way is an easement and it is therefore attached to the dominant tenement and if the dominant tenement is the coal or the mine then every way-leave enjoyed as a right in connection with that coal, will be on the register. Similarly if the coal mine is subject to an adverse right of way then that would be on the register. But it is just conceivable that there might be a right of way, attached not to the coal which is being worked but to a piece of the surface. If those odd rights-of-way were required to be put on the register in every case it would, in my respectful submission, seriously delay registration. I do not believe that they have any substantial importance especially when you have the words already in the Bill.

Sir S. Cripps: I was just about to explain, though less lucidly than the hon. and learned Gentleman has done, what this Clause means. I agree with him that it deals with cases where you have associated with the ownership of coal a right to pass over other land in the same lease. But the mere fact that the lessee may be the same person in two cases, with two different lessors, does not necessarily associate the right with the coal or with the mine. It is in those cases, and there are many of them, where there is some intervening owner of land who has no interest in the coal but through whose land it is necessary to pass either underground or overground, in order to market the coal or bring it to the surface, that you will not get registration under this Measure, and those are the cases about which my hon. Friends are speaking.

Mr. Spens: You can attach to the ownership of coal and the right of working coal any right-of-way which is convenient in connection with the working of the coal. It is entirely a question of conveyancing and as regards the intermediate land if the owner of the coal acquires a right-of-way and attaches it so as to associate it with the coal which he owns and is working, then that will be a wayleave which is enjoyed as a right in connection with the coal.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not suggesting that you cannot so associate it. What I am suggesting is that there are many cases where it is not associated.

Mr. Spens: Very few.

Sir S. Cripps: Then I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman only disagrees with me in regard to the number of cases?

Mr. Spens: Owing to bad conveyancing there may be exceptional cases.

Sir S. Cripps: If there is only an occasional case it will not delay the registration. On the other hand, there may be cases of great importance, although they are exceptions. I do not agree that they are exceptions. I think there are probably many of such cases but that would be discovered if we put in such an Amendment as this. I ask the Government to consider this Amendment. Everybody is agreed that it is desirable that these things should be recorded and clearly there is some doubt here. We are not making difficulties for the sake of making difficulties but because we believe there is a doubt and we do not want to have the courts hereafter saying that this is the sort of sloppy legislation which goes through Parliament nowadays. Let us be certain about it and if we mean it, let us say it without doubt or hesitation. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman in these circumstances at least to tell us that these words or some words will be inserted to put this matter beyond all doubt.

10.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): As this discussion has shown, there are difficult questions involved, and I need not say that my right hon. Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend welcome any assistance they can get. It is to be noted that this Amendment seeks merely to include certain specific matters as matters to be covered by the general words "held in association with." In our view at present, though, of course, we will consider what has been said, those general words, "held in association with," are the best words at any rate that we have so far been able to think of, and I do not think they are restricted as a matter of construction in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just suggested. I would ask him to look at Subsection (4, e) , which gives a certain elasticity in allowing or empowering the Board of Trade, when asking for particulars, to get particulars of


such other matters, if any, relating to the coal hereditaments in which the holding subsists, or to the title thereto, as appears to the Board to be material for the purpose of rendering the information as to proprietary interests recorded in the register complete.
I have not the slightest doubt at the moment, though I will, of course, consider what has been said, that wayleaves are covered in so far as they are held in association with the property in the coal, and I think that the paragraph to which I have referred is relevant, in that it gives the Board of Trade a certain elasticity in saying what are the particulars necessary in order to complete what is required for the register, namely, coal and the rights held in association with it. The objection which I feel to this Amendment, or to enumerating specific rights as included under the general words, "held in association with," is that, if you enumerate specific sorts of rights, you tend to raise the implication that other rights, just as important, may be excluded. We think that the words which we have in the Clause, coupled with the power which the Board of Trade has to specify the particulars which they require, are sufficient for making the register complete in the sense in which everyone desires that it should be complete. For the reasons which I have given, we could not agree to accept an Amendment on these lines, which picks out certain specific rights and makes specific reference to them, but, as I said, this is a difficult matter. On this Amendment, at any rate, we all have the same aim, and we will consider carefully what has been said.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: As often happens, the doubts which one legitimately holds are very often only increased by the sincere efforts of the Government Front Bench to point out why they should not exist, and I would like to say three things in answer to what the learned Attorney-General has just said. First, with regard to Clause 1, Sub-section (4, e), surely that is quite useless and almost misleading on this point. What the hon. Members for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) want is not that way-leaves should appear as material information to put in the register about some other proprietary interests. What they want is that these wayleaves shall be registered proprietary interests. As I understand paragraph (e), it cannot

enable the Board of Trade to add one jot of ownership to the register. Another thing that the Attorney-General said was that it is dangerous to enumerate specific rights lest by using specific words you narrow down the whole thing. I agree, but it is the duty of the Government and their draftsmen to see that the Bill covers the specific rights which it is intended to cover, and they must use proper language to cover them. If it does not, the Government ought before the Report stage to see that it does.
It struck me when my hon. and learned Friends were discussing the matter across the Floor of the House that there is a simple illustration of the thing which would be rightly called a wayleave, but which would not be called a wayleave by the Bill as it stands. Take a colliery company which has a lease of its coal seams from the Duke of X. The land of the Marquess of Y lies between two of the seams rented from the Duke of X, and they have to lease from the Marquess of Y at an exorbitant rent the right to pass their coal from one of the seams to the shaft. That wayleave is only associated with the coal in the very loose sense that if you were not getting coal you would not want it. The Marquess of Y quite likely owns no more coal than I do, and perhaps less if his cellar happens to be smaller than mine. Here we have something that clearly ought to be covered by this Bill.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We want this included because when the major Bill comes forward we want to discuss wayleaves. I gather that the figure submitted to the tribunal as the annual sum payable was £4,430,000, but the actual sum that has been paid is £5,655,000. Am I to understand that it is not proposed in the major Bill, and, therefore, it is not proposed in the register, to deal with the question of wayleaves and rent? There have been, I gather, some formal consultations with the people employed in the industry. Am I right in stating that both sides have urged on the Government that if the job is to be done, it should be done as one job completely?

10.39 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: A statement was made in the House on the whole question on 9th March. The figure which the hon.


Gentleman quoted was taken out of the Treasury Minute when the tribunal was established. It was agreed between the representatives of the royalty owners and the Government as the average net annual income derived from such property during the seven years 1928–34. That was the basis of the discussion. Being an average figure, it is not the figure for any one year. What the tribunal was asked to determine does include underground way-leaves.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The £4,430,000 includes all the money paid from royalties for coal, rents and wayleaves, underground and on the surface?

Captain Crookshank: I understand that the figure covered all underground rights connected with the working of coal.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 244

Division No. 299.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Price, M. P.

Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson,. J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, H. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Silverman, S. S.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Day, H.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Foot, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cary, R. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bernays, R. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bossom, A. C.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Apsley, Lord
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Channon, H.


Assheton, R.
Brass, Sir W.
Christie, J. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Bull, B. B.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Burghley, Lord
Courthope, Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Butcher, H. W.
Cox, H. B. T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Craven-Ellis, W.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Carver, Major W. H.
Critchley, A.




Crooke, J. S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cross, R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Remer, J. R.


Crossley, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


De Chair, S. S.
Kimball, L.
Rowlands, G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb,Sir J. Q.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Denville, Alfred
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Dodd, J. S.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Doland, G. F.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, E. W.


Drewe, C.
Lewis, O.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Scott, Lord William


Durglass, Lord
Lipson, D. L.
Selley, H. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Eckersley, P. T.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Ellis, Sir G.
Lyons, A. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emery, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Errington, E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Everard, W. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Spens, W. P.


Findlay, Sir E.
Magnay, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Fleming, E. L.
Maitland, A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, [...])


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Storey, S.


Furness, S. N.
Manningham-Butler, Sir M
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Markham, S. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Granville, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Grigg, Sir E. W. M
Moreing, A. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Turton, R. H.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wakefield, W. W.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Nicholson, G. (Farnnam)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Guy, J. C. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Warrender, Sir V.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wayland, Sir W. A


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peake, O.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peat, C. U.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hepworth, J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Higgs, W. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wragg, H.


Hopkinson, A.
Porritt, R. W.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, H. V. A. M.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Major Sir George Davies and Mr.


Hulbert, N. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Munro.


Hunter, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the beginning, to insert:
Every person having, or claiming to have, a proprietary interest which constitutes or is comprised in a holding shall make application to the Board for the registration in the register of particulars in respect of such holding within the period of six months beginning as to England on the date on which notice is first published in the London Gazette, and as to Scotland on the date on which notice is first published in the Edinburgh Gazette, of rules having been made by the Board with respect to the procedure for the making of applications, and.

The three Amendments which follow upon the Order Paper, and which I understand are to be called, are all part of the same proposal. Two are purely consequential. If I may, I will speak on all four Amendments at this stage. They are designed simply to make the operation of registration possible, and for that purpose I think they are reasonably fit and apt words. They look a little clumsy, but they have been taken almost textually from the provisions in Schedule 2 of the Bill relating to putting forward applications for the registration of particulars.


Whereas the Schedule in effect says that persons who are going to make applications shall make them like this, the words which I propose shall be inserted are that people having any such claims or interests shall as a matter of compulsion put them. All that I want to say is—not interrupting hon. Members opposite too much—that the matter should be made compulsory.
If anyone wants a precedent—and naturally a conservative lawyer like myself looks for a precedent—it is to be found absolutely in the Land Registration Act, 1925. It is amusing to discover that in the long tangled history of land registration in this country it was supported at an early date by those persons, sometimes called reactionary, the landowners, and opposed by the lawyers. It is now the law that every person owning land in this country can, if he happens to be in the right area, be compelled to register his own title to his own land. As far as precedent goes there is the precedent. So far as argument for the application of the precedent in this particular instance goes, surely every argument is in its favour. I attribute good faith to the Government in this matter.
I feel sure that they are really anxious that this Bill shall provide them with the maximum of machinery to assist in the carrying through of their subsequent Bill, and I am certain of two things: First, that if this Bill remains voluntary the more people who join in it the better the Government will be pleased, and, second, that if registration is not made compulsory under this Bill something very similar to registration will be made compulsory in the next Bill, save in respect of all those persons who do not want to be compensated in respect of their property. If the Government want as many people as possible to register under this Bill, why not tell them all to register? It is not much of a hardship to say to a man, "If you are deriving something out of the activities of other men by sitting still (which is the social function to be dealt with in the final Bill) you must bring it before the country and put it in a register," which register for the moment, although we have Amendments down about that, is a register which inquisitive people will not be allowed to go and read. I ask the Committee to say that it is eminently reasonable and the only sensible

thing to make this compulsory instead of voluntary.
The only other part of my Amendments which I think requires some mention beyond what I have already said is the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at the end, to insert:
No application for registration shall be received by the Board after the expiration of the said period of six months unless for special reasons in ens particular case the Board decides or the High Court direct that this should be done"—
six months being a period of six months running from the date when notice of the rules is first published in the respective Gazettes and that being taken from the Government's own provisions in the Schedules. The Government's idea is this: After the rules have been published—you cannot expect anyone to do very much in the way of seeking registration before the rules are there—the Government give six months to everyone in which to register, and provide the modest sanction that, if they do not register, they will not get the costs of registration. We who want to make it compulsory seek to give them the same period of six months. At the end of the six months we cannot bar them from compensation, even conditionally, because this Bill has nothing to do with compensation, but we seek to say that at the end of the six months the opportunity for fulfilling the duty of registration will lapse, and that, if anyone comes along after that and wants to register, he must show the board that there is some special reason in his particular case, or, if the board do not think that there is, he must show the High Court. The suspicion will not have escaped hon. Members that if that were carried we should like to think that in the final Bill there would be a provision that the compensation pool should be divided only between those who have put themselvees on the register, but I only mention that in passing; it cannot be done by this Bill, or properly discussed upon it. In substance the four Amendments simply ask that the provision should be made compulsory.

10.58 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: Personally I think there is a little difficulty in this Amendment, but I am supporting it on the ground that, if there is to be registration, it is


much more likely to be done if it is compulsory than if it is to be voluntary. Of course, compulsion will not bear hardly on any large royalty owner, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or anyone like that, but I know that there are many poor and small royalty owners who may find it rather difficult to register compulsorily within the six months. I am not putting that forward as a reason why registration should not be compulsory; I do not quite understand the advantage of its being voluntary, and personally, as there is to be registration, I should be in favour of the Amendment.

10.59 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: On the Second Reading it was made quite clear that our intention was to try to get as much of the work done on the problem of collecting information about the properties in coal as could possibly be achieved, in anticipation of the introduction and passage of the Bill to which allusion has been made throughout our Debates. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is to the effect that steps to that end should be compulsory, but the really difficult question that arises is the question: What justification can there possibly be for trying to compel people to do something unless and until the purpose of the register is defined in the next Measure? Compulsory powers would have to be considered in the presence of far more details as to the general plan which Parliament will be discussing. We put it forward as a voluntary proposal in order that as many people as possible should register, and as much as possible of the work which is admitted to be necessary by the royalty owners themselves should be done in anticipation of the general scheme. They are quite prepared to undertake that work. That is one thing. To undertake work for some purpose which cannot be specified in the legislation is really not a practical proposition. After all, this register is not going to close in six months. The Amendment would have that effect. Under our proposal, under which voluntary action will be taken at the start, it will last considerably longer than that.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says we have only put in a modest sanction that they should only be paid if they register voluntarily. I cannot conceive that being described as a sanction. He admitted that what he would like is that

after six months, if anyone had not registered, he must be barred from compensation, but he said the Clause could not do that because the Bill has nothing to do with compensation, and therefore he could not insert a sanction of the kind he would like. Ultimately, of course, I should envisage that Parliament will say that the road to receiving compensation will be the road of the register, because whoever is going to deal with the matter will obviously have to have accurate information about the property so that in the end it will be a complete register of the properties which will be paid for. When he tries to make it compulsory that every person claiming to have a proprietary interest shall make application to be registered, he is inviting a tremendous and unnecessary number of persons to register, because "every person claiming to have a proprietary interest" admits a whole variety of people who have some sort of interest in a particular property—wives, brothers, sisters, trustees and everyone else—and, as I read the Amendment, they will all have to register. The work will not merely be duplicated but multiplied to an enormous degree. Under the proposal of the Bill it is sufficient for one person who has a proprietary right to register the property. The rights of the others are dealt with otherwise, and only one lot of costs will be paid.

Mr. Pritt: I am willing to withdraw the words "claiming to have."

Captain Crookshank: That is a very handsome offer but not one that I am prepared to accept, because I do not concede that it is desirable at this stage to make registration in any way compulsory. Our whole object is to try to get on with the work now, and we feel sure that the best way of getting on with it, in anticipation of another Bill, is to do it on voluntary lines. You cannot expect people to do compulsorily something for a purpose which is undefined and it cannot be done without raising a great many issues far wider than it is reasonable to discuss in a machinery Bill of this kind and I am afraid, in spite of the pleasant way in which it was proposed, we cannot accept the Amendment.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made confusion worse confounded by the statement he has


made to the Committee. I should like to apply not the legal interpretation to either the Clause or the Amendment, but the common sense interpretation. What possible objection can the Government have to compulsory registration? I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that you cannot associate compulsory registration with an indefinite purpose. Although there is no Bill before the Committee at this stage which defines the ultimate purpose of the Government, it is clear that this Bill is a preparatory Measure designed to be dovetailed into another Measure which will appear at a subsequent stage. If we divorce the ultimate purpose of the Government from this Measure it will have no purpose at all, and I cannot understand why the Government should produce it. If there is no compulsory legislation, what is the purpose of registration? I understand that the Government desire, for purposes which, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, are for the moment indefinite—they certainly are not clear to us, although we have a vague idea of the ultimate intentions of the Government—at least to obtain in this Measure all relative information in relation to coal royalties, way leaves and the like in order to prepare themselves for some future event. If the registration is incomplete, the information will be incomplete, and how can incomplete information on a matter of this kind be of any value to the Government? That is the essential point, and I cannot understand for the life of me why the hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses to make this provision compulsory.
This is a complete block, and the Government have no clear conception themselves as to the nature of the Measure which is to follow. I have a suspicion as to the kind of Bill that will be produced. It may be a hotchpotch Measure which is not designed to acquire royalties at one fell swoop, but merely to acquire royalties over a long period of years. It may be that that is in the mind of the Government, and for that reason they are not attempting compulsory registration at this stage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that compensation will follow registration, and that is to say, that compensation arising from a subsequent Measure is in some way related to

the question of registration. Clearly, if that is so, registration must be complete. How will it be possible for any royalty owner or anyone who has any right and interest in wayleaves, surface rights and the like to demand compensation at a later stage unless he is included in existing registration? How can the Government have some knowledge as to their rights unless these rights have been definitely registered?
It may be true that I am the only one in the Committee in this state of mind, but I am hopelessly confused as to the meaning to be derived from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reference to compensation following registration. How are the two things to be related? I come to what I regard as the most substantial issue of all. If the ultimate Measure is to be of any value, clearly it must be based on a complete knowledge of the facts of the case. There must be full information made available to the Government in order to determine what the royalties are, where they are situated, what their value may be and all cognate information.
Without that information the Government will not be in a position to determine what form the ultimate Measure is to be. If this scheme is to fit into the main plan, it is far better to have compulsory registration than a partial and incomplete registration based on the voluntary method.
It may be—I offer this opinion with due reserve—that the voluntary system is suggested because the Government have some doubt whether the royalty owners will be prepared to come into the ultimate scheme. Objections have already been raised. Objections were stated in another place. It may be that these objections will become more pronounced in due course. It may be on account of that fear in the mind of the Government that they have not demanded compulsion. If that be so, what is the use of the Bill that is to follow, if there is to be a Bill? Taking not the legal view but the common sense view, it is far better to insist upon compulsion now than to have this partial and incomplete method, which in the end will have no value.

11.12 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Every time the Minister talks on this Bill it appears more extra-


ordinary and fantastic. Presumably, the purpose of this Bill is in order to get a register of the interests in coal in this country. It so, it must obviously be the desire of the Government to be a complete register because an incomplete register is worse than useless; it is misleading. The Minister says that you cannot compel people to register unless they know what the ultimate purpose is. The Land Register has no ultimate purpose except that people should register their titles in a way which enables other people easily to ascertain what those titles are. In this case the other people are the Government. Even if you have a method of collecting statistics—agricultural statistics, Board of Trade statistics—unless you can compel the answering of these statistics they are perfectly valueless to you, because they are incomplete. I cannot understand if all that is required is that the royalty owners should have an opportunity of getting ready before the next Bill comes, why we should trouble to pass a Bill in order to help the royalty owners to get ready. They can get ready without a Bill of any sort; When one looks at the Bill, it is very extraordinary, because it is quite clear that by its terms the Bill takes up the point of view that it is necessary to register. If the Minister will look at the Schedule on the Order Paper, Clause 3 (a) he will find these words:
So, however, that this provision shall not have effect as regards a holding"—
This is the provision about not paying costs
in respect of which application is made after the expiration of the said period in a case in which it appears to the Board that sufficient cause is shown for no application having been made within the said period:
What is the "sufficient cause for no application having been made," when registration is voluntary. The sufficient cause is that the man did not want to register. It is in fact laying down a criterion on which the Board of Trade are to judge whether or not a man ought to register. tinder a voluntary system there can be no "ought" about it. In fact, the person who drafted the Clause has applied the sanction that if a person does not register within six months he will not be able to get the costs of his application or the costs of subsequent litigation. He is to be deprived of the benefit of the State paying for the costs of his regis-

tration and subsequent litigation, and if he comes late the Board of Trade is to say whether he ought to have registered within six months or not. What criterion is going to be applied by the Board of Trade as to whether a man ought to have registered within six months if registration is not compulsory? If registration is compulsory it is perfectly easy to apply a criterion and to say whether a man has a good cause for not registering. That is what is proposed by the Amendment. There is power to excuse compulsory registration; the man may not have heard about it or may be out of the country; he may have a good excuse; but you cannot wed the idea of voluntary registration and the idea of penalising a man for not registering, which is done by the Bill as it is drafted. It is quite clear that the Committee must take the view, either that they do not care about registration, that it is not going to be of any value and that they do not want it, or the view that registration is essential in view of what we know is the intention as regards the coal mines; and if it is essential, then it must be complete, otherwise it is valueless. If people are going to be asked to register now, there is no reason why one lot should be asked to register now and another lot compelled to register later on. If anything is going to happen there must be compulsory registration at some stage, and I cannot see what benefit it is to anybody to make it voluntary, or what harm there is in making it compulsory. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment. If it is to be satisfactory, it must be made compulsory.

11.19 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has raised a rather larger issue than that raised by the Amendment. There appears to be still considerable misconception both as to the purpose and as to the utility of the Bill, and I should like to remind the Committee of the circumstances which have given rise to it. I do not disguise from the Committee that, if we were now at the early part of a Session instead of the closing days, it might have been unnecessary to introduce a Bill of this kind, and we might be discussing the major Bill, which would have included provi-


visions very much of this nature. As was announced to the House by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, it became clear, after the receipt of the award of the arbitral tribunal, that, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary time, there would be no possibility of passing the major Bill into law before the end of this Session. I think the whole House recognised the force of that contention. That major Bill is bound to be, when it is introduced, a Measure creating considerable controversy and one which the House not unnaturally would wish to discuss at great length.
The Government were faced with this dilemma. If it was a fact that no legislation could be introduced until next Session, were all the intervening months to be completely wasted, or was there a way in which those months could be used to provide us with information which would be necessary afterwards, and which, therefore, to some extent, would shorten the time that we finally required? We believe that those intervening months can be usefully filled by compiling a register on the lines set out in this Bill, but at the same time we have to be careful not to do anything in this Bill which will compromise individual Members when it comes to a discussion of the major Bill and which will commit them in advance of full knowledge to particular points. I have made those remarks because I want the Committee to understand what is the balance that we try to maintain in this Bill. The hon. and learned Member asked why this Bill has been made voluntary. I think the answer is really contained in the Amendment which hon. Members opposite have moved. It is, that in this Bill and at this stage, even if the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to make registration compulsory, he would be unable to find any sanction for that compulsion. There is, in fact, no sanction behind it. That is because, until the major Bill is discussed, it is impossible to introduce a sanction of any kind.

Sir S. Cripps: It has the sanction of the courts behind it.

Mr. Stanley: I am not talking now of sanctions in the way of authority, but in the sense of penalties. There is no sanction, because the only thing that happens is that a man cannot get on the register,

and as far as this Bill is concerned, a man does not suffer if he is not on the register. It is only in the major Bill that you can deal with that position, and it is only in the major Bill that the measure of compulsion will be introduced. What is that measure of compulsion likely to be? It is that anybody who has not registered will not, in fact, share in the compensation. It seems to me that that, when it comes to be proposed. is the effective sanction for this registration. It is not that we want to have a great number of people registering in cases where the particulars that they register are of no interest to us. It is that ultimately only those who do register will be entitled to the compensation.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the Government intend, in the ultimate Measure, that those who fail to register are to be dispossessed of royalties without compensation?

Mr. Stanley: It is clear that there must be a time-limit somewhere with the registration, otherwise it would be impossible to distribute compensation at all.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer as simply as he can the simple point I put to him? Do I understand him to have said that the ultimate—

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I would point out to the Committee that I had very considerable doubts about accepting the Amendment on the ground that it might be outside
the scope of the Bill. The discussion is now getting outside the Bill. If the subsequent discussion proceeds on those lines, I may have to withdraw the Amendment from the Committee.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has used as his major argument against the Amendment the suggestion that in the later Measure those who fail to register under this Clause will be deprived of compensation and will be dispossessed of their property. Do I understand him to have said that? What did he say?

Mr. Stanley: That was not what I said. All I said was that at some time finality would have to be reached, based on the register. I did not go further than that.

Mr. Pritt: With reference to the suggestion that the Amendment could not be accepted because there is no sanction—which is inconsistent with the reason given by the Secretary for Mines—is it really the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the general body of owners of coal royalties are so disloyal that they will not obey a statute unless there is a penalty for not doing so?

Mr. Stanley: If we are to go into that, we are entitled to say that if the thing is so unimportant that no penalty attaches to it, then it cannot carry much weight. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we had already given away the case in the provision with regard to excuses for not registering within six months. That is the only point I have to answer. What we have in mind is the case where a man can prove to us that he was unable to register—that he was abroad or ill, or through some physical disability, or for reasons of time or space, was unable to register in the time. In that case we give him a chance of registering.

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the point, though I am sure that is my fault. Why have you to look for a reason, when this is only voluntary? Surely it is a good enough reason to say, "I do not want to register." Yet you have a provision here that it is only in certain cases, where it appears to the Board that sufficient cause is shown, that the owner who fails to register is not to be treated by sanction as if he had done something wrong. The Schedule does make it wrong not to register within the six

months, because, unless the owner can get his excuse past the Board of Trade, his costs of registration will not be met by the Board. He is penalised as compared with the others who register in the six months. Surely, that is a sanction. If you say to A, "I will pay your costs of registration," and to B, "I will not pay your costs, because you have not applied within six months," is not that a sanction for not having applied within six months? But that is what the Clause says, and it goes on to say that the Board of Trade may excuse B if he can put up a proper excuse. What excuse is required except "I do not want to register"?

Mr. Stanley: I do not wish to weary the Committee by replying to the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made in the middle of mine. I do not think his point is a good one. The position is simple. We say to the royalty-owners: "Here is the register in which you may register your holding". In order to encourage owners to register as quickly as possible, we offer an inducement by way of payment of the costs of registration in six months. If for any reasons of their own certain owners prefer to register later than six months there is no reason why we should give them that benefit; but it is absurd to say that because we do offer an inducement for early registration we are thereby imposing a sanction.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted".

The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 225.

Division No. 300.]
AYES.
[11.30 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dobbie, W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Adamson, W. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Ammon, C. G.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Banfield, J. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Holdsworth, H.


Barnes, A. J.
Foot, D. M.
Hollins, A.


Barr, J.
Frankel, D.
Hopkin, D.


Batey, J.
Gallacher, W.
Jagger, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gardner, B. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Broad, F. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Kelly, W. T.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Kirby, B. V.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Daggar, G.
Groves, T. E.
Lathan, G.


Dalton, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Lawson, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lee, F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Leslie, J. R.




Logan, D. G.
Price, M. P.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Lunn, W.
Pritt, D. N.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McEntee, V. La T.
Ritson, J.
Thurtle, E.


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Tinker, J. J.


MacLaren, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Maclean, N.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Walkden, A. G.


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Watson, W. McL.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Sexton, T. M.
Westwood, J.


Mander, G. le M.
Shinwell, E.
White, H. Graham


Maxton, J.
Silkin, L.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Messer, F.
Silverman, S. S.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Muff, G.
Simpson, F. B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Oliver, G. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Paling, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Parkinson, J. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen, C.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lipson, D. L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dodd, J. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Doland, G. F.
Lloyd, G. W.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Loftus, P. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Drewe, C.
Lyons, A. M.


Apsley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mabans, W. (Huddersfield)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duggan, H. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Assheton, R.
Eastwood, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Eckersley, P. T.
MacDonald Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Ellis, Sir G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McKie, J. H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Elmley, Viscount
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Emery, J. F.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Errington, E.
Maitland, A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fildes, Sir H.
Markham, S. F.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Findlay, Sir E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fleming, E. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Furness, S. N.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bossom, A. C.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Brass, Sir W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Granville, E. L.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon, Sir Hugh


Bull, B. B.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Burghley, Lord
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Peake, O.


Butcher, H. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Peat,C. U.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cary, R. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Porritt, R. W.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Radford, E. A.

Channon, H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Christie, J. A.
Hepworth, J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Herbert, Major J.A. (Monmouth)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Higgs, W. F.
Rathbone, J. R, (Bodmin)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Holmes, J. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reed, A. C.(Exeter)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Romer, J. R.


Cox, H. B. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hunter, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Critchley, A.James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, J. S.
Joel, D. J. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rowlands, G.


Croom-Johnson, R.P.
Keeling, E. H.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salmon, Sir I.


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salt, E. W.


Crowder, J.F. E.
Kimball, L.
Scott, Lord William


Culverwell, C. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Selley, H. R.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.







Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tate, Mavis C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Thomas, J. P. L
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Spens, W. P.
Turton, R. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Wakefield, W. W.
Wragg, H.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Storey, S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)



Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir V.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sutcliffe, H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

11.34 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(6) The provisions of Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the payment by the Board of costs incurred in giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
This Amendment and other amendments in my name, are merely a reprint of the underlined privilege parts of the Bill.

Mr. Batey: I want to raise the question whether the costs of registration should be borne by the State or by the royalty owner. When will be the best time for me to raise it?

The Deputy-Chairman: It obviously arises on this Amendment. If it is raised now it cannot be raised again on the Schedule. I think it had better be raised now.

Mr. Batey: My hon. and learned Friend on the front bench has an Amendment which will raise the question, and I will wait until he moves it.

Amendment agreed to.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out from beginning to "any", in line 36.
This Amendment and the following Amendment—in page 3, line 1, to leave out from "person" to "may", in line 3—in the names of myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) stand together. Their purpose is to allow the public to see the register and take extracts from it. We cannot understand why the register should be kept secret. No subject has been more widely discussed or has given rise to more controversy among the mining population than royalities and wayleaves. We are all interested in who owns the coal, how much there is of it, the terms of any lease or sublease, and the

amounts paid in royalties in the various collieries. There is a considerable difference between the amounts paid in royalties by different collieries and there are differences between district and district even in some collieries. I have in mind a colliery not far from where I live where the royalties vary from 6d. to 1s. 9d. a ton. Why this information should not be disclosed I cannot understand. The reasonable royalty owner has nothing to fear; it is only the unreasonable royalty owner who has a dislike to the information being made public.
The replies given to this request by the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading were not very convincing. The President of the Board of Trade indicated, though he did not pledge himself to it, that there would not be the same objection to the information being disclosed to the public if it were really a State register, a compulsory register, and not a voluntary one. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I have his words before me, but I do not want to take up time by reading them. If he looks at his speech on Second Reading he will see that what I have said is correct. We think it a good thing that the public should have an opportunity of checking what may be unjustifiable claims by examining the register. The more complete the register becomes, whether by compulsion or as a result of a voluntary response, the more confidence will the public have in it. At any rate there is publicity as soon as any litigation takes place between the various owners regarding rights in any property to be put on the register, and if the information is disclosed in those cases we do not see why the whole register should not be available for those who desire to examine it. No one is more interested in royalties than miners and miners' representatives. The cost of royalties absorbs a very substantial part of their production of coal. No less than £4,500,000 is taken out of the pro-


duction of the miners every year for royalties. The interest of the miners in this question will therefore be readily understood, and for the life of me I cannot see why the Government should not make the register public, so that anyone desiring to get information should have an opportunity of doing so, instead of the register being confined to those who themselves register and the officials of the Board of Trade.

11.45 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: I support the Amendment because I cannot see the advantage of secrecy. There is a feeling that the information might be used for propaganda purposes, but I do not see how that could last very long, while I see great advantage from having the thing public. There may be people who think they have claims to rights and fees. There is also the point, which anybody who owns a colliery knows, that there is a certain amount of coal for which there is no owner, and for which you have to make allowances because some owner may turn up in the future. It is time people knew who is the owner of coal they are working. I cannot see why secrecy should be observed when you are registering coal and not when registering land. If there are not to be complications in the future, the more public the thing is the better, and the more advantage there will be to the coal trade as a whole.

11.47 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I cannot see that any conceivable public purpose can be served at this stage in making public these details. These properties are still in private hands and it does not seem easy to find justification for making public the details of private properties. The hon. Member who called in aid the registration of land unfortunately did so wrongly; it is the other way round. Only a very small number of persons are authorised to go to the register, under the Act of 1925, and this Clause was drafted from that Act. What is laid down appears to me to be reasonable. Quite different circumstances might arise later, if the properties passed into public ownership, and if that stage is reached everybody ought to be able to go and see the register and inform themselves as to who has the property.

Mr. S. O. Davies: After it has become public property?

Captain Crookshank: The House decided that we should proceed to have a voluntary and not a compulsory register. If you made it possible for details of private properties to be available, a great many people would say, "No, I am not prepared to give those details."

Sir H. Seely: Perhaps the rightful owner.

Captain Crookshank: The rightful owner can himself register. I cannot see that any public purpose is served by making this information available at this stage. I take my stand on the clauses of the Registration of Land Act, in which there is very great similarity and I would not advise the Committee to accept this amendment. The hon. Gentleman who moved it said that everybody was interested to know how much coal there was, who owned it, the amounts paid in royalties and so on. That may be, but here we are making a register of the coal properties and when he said that it would be very useful to make it public because the public would be able to check unjustifiable claims, although we cannot go into what may be done in a subsequent Bill, I cannot imagine that there will not be machinery to deal with unjustifiable claims without having to call in aid the whole of the general public of this country. It is a matter in which everybody is interested.

Mr. Pritt: Then let everybody see it.

Captain Crookshank: There is no justification for allowing the information to be doled out piecemeal.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. and gallant Gentlemen says that he can see no public service in making important facts public. I think most people can. But when he particularly appeals to the precedent in the Land Registration Act I would draw his attention to a much more interesting, relevant and cogent question. It appears that in 1872 numbers of wicked persons were making propaganda against landowners. I imagine that they included Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke; if not, their immediate intellectual predecessors. The Government of the day took a wise course. They said, "If people are going to make propaganda


against landowners let the facts be known." They published a list of all the landowners and what they were getting out of their land. It would be a good thing if the same were done here.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I am afraid the fear that propaganda would be made if these facts were disclosed is becoming an obsession with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He does not appreciate the amount of ammunition which he has in a short speech given to this side of the House, propaganda not merely against this Bill but against the general attitude of the Government and supporters of the Government as to what they still regard, in 1937, as the extreme sacredness of private property. We have had an exhibition of that mentality which harks back for several centuries. Surely it is obviously in the interests of the general public that they shall know that this vast sum of money, if it is to be distributed, shall not be distributed among people who might obviously have no claim at all to the sharing of this vast loot, which is to be taken out of the miners of this country. As one who has spent most of his life in and associated with collieries, may I tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that neither he nor his Department, nor any resources to which he may lay claim, will be able to check the claims that will be made by royalty owners, fictitious and otherwise, in this country? May I give one simple illustration of what I mean? I give it only in order to strengthen, if necessary, the claim that we on this side of the Committee make with respect to this Amendment. A royalty owner registers, and tells the Department that he has claims to royalties from, say, 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 tons of coal which is known to exist in a certain part of, say, the South Wales coalfield. It may be known to us that the coal exists there—perhaps a square mile, or square miles, of coal un-worked. It may be known, incidentally, that the coal is of excellent quality. But, although the coal is there, and although the claim may he made by a royalty owner, it may be known to us, though possibly not to the Department, that that coal, a s it is situated, is absolutely of no use or value to the country. It may be in the heart of a vast waterlogged area, and, although it may be of first-class quality, it may be for practical purposes absolutely useless.
Why should not the people who live in the locality—a locality which may have generations of experience in coal working—be assured that no royalty owner has come along and has taken out of this sum of money perhaps tens of thousands of pounds in respect of property that is, and is likely to remain, absolutely useless? Naturally we shall want to ask: Who are the people who are to share this money; what claims have they to a share in it; how have those claims been registered; and have they been proved to be genuine and bona fide claims? But the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that, whatever interest we have in this Bill and in the coal that is there, we are not to be permitted to find out whether, on an absolutely fictitious claim, tens of thousands of pounds have been paid out.
It simply comes back to what we on this side have continually accused the Government of, namely, that the interests of the working class do not matter at all, that the Government have no concern for anyone but the crowd of property owners by the existence of whom, apparently, they justify their own existence I want to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, unless the people have access to the claims that will be registered, he will provide far more propaganda for those who desire material for it than he will by revealing the contents of these claims. Further, it will be his own fault if suspicion is engendered in the minds of people who are interested, not on the basis of any claim to royalties, but as workers, miners and others who will have to find this money. It will deepen their suspicion; it will bring home to them, perhaps more clearly than ever, that the only spirit that can be embodied in any legislation from this Government will be the spirit that eternally looks after the interests of those to whom, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, this is a gift to which they have no moral and no sound historical claim.

12 m.

Mr. MacLaren: In the event of the registration being compulsory will the data recorded in the register be made public? I can quite understand looking at it from the point of view of the Minister that seeing that this is an inducement to voluntary registration they might deem it advisable to make the data public under the voluntary scheme. That is why I am asking if the registration be-


comes compulsory would the Minister promise to allow the data to be open to public inspection.

Captain Crookshank: I cannot take the matter much further than my right hon. Friend did on the Second Reading. If I read what he said it may answer the point:
Let it be remembered that the register starts as the register of holdings in the possession of private individuals, but it will end as the register of holdings which are the property of the State. When that happens and the register is simply a description of what the State in one form or another owns, I myself, although I can make no pledge at the moment, can see no objection whatsoever in its being made public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1937; col. 1135, Vol. 326.]
Of course the second answer apart from that quotation is the general one that that is one point that must be left for Parliament as a whole to deal with later on.

Mr. MacLaren: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that to make it public after transfer is of very little avail. It is a sort of historical document which may have propaganda value retrospectively. I have not raised the point of propaganda at all. I think the Minister was most indiscreet to throw that in that there was propaganda behind it because that was making a confession to the world that if the facts were known they were of such a character that if Members of the Labour party were to microphone there would be a revolt against the proposition embodied in the Bill.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: Is this secrecy of the list of ownership being maintained in the interest of private owners or of the public? In whose interest is this House supposed to deal? Are we here to deal with the interests of the general public or of private ownership? That seems to me to be the real purpose here. Many a colliery company itself is a royalty owner. The company's resources are well known to everyone. Anyone can see them at Somerset House as a capitalistic concern. There is no privacy that anyone deems it necessary to safeguard. When you come to deal with the making of this register, there is some mysterious reason why it has to be safeguarded. In whose interest? Obviously, in the interest of the people who can exploit the public.

I am particularly interested in a certain transaction in my area—and it is typical of a large number of similar transactions all over the country—in which a certain landowner has sold his landed estate. His ground leases have been sold. No one seems to know what has happened in respect of the royalty underneath that land, but we know that the company who have bought the surface rentals of the land are endeavouring to safeguard themselves against those who may purchase the ground leases and against any claim that may arise from undermining that land. No one seems to know why this particular safeguard is being sought at the moment, but in the interests of the general public, it is very necessary that all the publicity possible must be shed upon the real ownership of the coal resources of this country, otherwise we are laying it open for the general interests to be exploited by certain private individuals in this country. In whose interests are the Government really devising this scheme? Are they deliberately shielding private ownership in order that it may exploit the public? That is the real question in this matter.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Batey: The Minister himself made a statement in which he led the Committee to believe that, when the register was complete, it might be open for inspection. Will he explain the meaning of Sub-section (7), on pages 2 and 3, which says:
The person on whose application particulars have been registered in respect of a holding and any person authorised by him or by an order of the High Court or by rules made by the Board, but no other person, may inspect and make copies of and extracts from the entries in the register relating to the holding.
That seems to suggest that no person may inspect and make copies of and extracts from the register except the person who makes the application or someone he appoints, unless it be by order of the High Court or by rules made by the Board. Why is it proposed to make these rules?

12.8 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there are several places in the Bill where provision is made for making rules, and this is one of them. In the Bill there is reference to rules being made. They are machinery rules, and we


put the provision in here to cover certain cases in respect of which the Board might consider it necessary to make these rules. The House can see exactly where they come in, but it does not mean a general application; it merely means that in certain cases one can conceive that the Board might think it desirable to apply them.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Suppose the miners' representatives made an application to the Board that their auditor, for ascertainment purposes, should be permitted to see this register, would he not be an interested person? Royalties and all these commitments enter into the costs of production and into the ascertainments, which govern the payment of wages. Supposing the miners of South Wales asked that their auditor should have a look at this register, would he be entitled under this Clause so to do?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think there would be any purpose in that so far as I can see. No complaint on the part of auditors to whom the hon. Gentleman refers has been brought to my notice.

Mr. Griffiths: They may want to check the information on the register. It is true that they get information, but they may want to check the actual amount which is paid in royalities. Would they not be entitled to look at the register to check such information?

Mr. Jenkins: Miners will be deeply interested in this Bill and in the subsequent Measure. Suppose the Miners' Federation decided to ask their officials to examine the register; would they have the right, as being as much interested in this matter as anybody else, to inspect the register, take particulars from it and report what they found there to the members of the Miners' Federation?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Captain Crookshank: I have no objection to rising at once to answer the question. I do not think that anyone would have rights of that kind.

Mr. Mainwaring: Would anybody who desires to make a claim for compensation for undermining of his house and property be entitled to inspect this register?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I do not think so. It is possible to bring up all sorts

of cases. We must come back to where we started; let us find out what is the object of this register.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: May I put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the difficulty that I am in? In my district there are 1,700 leaseholders faced with the position that there has been a transfer of ground rents from the original owner to a new one, a finance company in the City of London. Much of the property was safeguarded against undermining; if it became damaged in consequence of undermining they had a right to compensation. Now the finance company is seeking to compel these 1,700 owners to purchase their freeholds compulsorily, with the stipulation that they shall no longer be safeguarded against undermining. Who is the owner of those mining royalties? That is a question of grave importance to those 1,700 individuals. Unless they are entitled to inspect the register against whom are they to make a claim? They will not know. The old owner is gone and it will be very serious for them if the Government, in this new legislation, safeguard the new crowd of financier sharks from London. It is a grave responsibility.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Davidson: Can the Minister let us know exactly what the wording of the Clause means when it refers to a person authorised by the owner or by an order of the High Court? In the event of a national stoppage in the mines, when the miners, led by their leaders, are fighting for certain conditions as they have done in the past, and as they will probably have to do in future, nad should figures be quoted with regard to this dispute, what rights would there be for the men's representatives to ascertain the facts for themselves in regard to the cost of production of coal? That is a very important point and one on which we ought at least to ask for some assurance from the Minister. The Secretary for the Mines Department stated that in regard to this Clause it was not just the sacredness of private property, but it does seem to imply the sacredness of private ownership.
What is the ulterior motive behind the Clause? I want the Secretary for the Mines Department to try to give us at least a straightforward reply. If he


really intends that the public are not to be acquainted with the facts in regard to this Clause, then let him say so, and not hide behind quibbling words that have no meaning at all and talk about propaganda of hon. Members on this side. I am not a representative of mining, but I do say that he has to-night throughout presented the industrial areas at least with a suspicion, that will mature into a definite propaganda, that when he refuses to come into the open and when he definitely shows he has something to hide with regard to mining conditions, there must be some very underhand political work going on by the opposite side.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to allude to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring). On the case he presented to us it seemed to me that his constituents are people who have a right as against the existing coalowners before the finance corporation came in, and therefore such compensation as they are entitled to is one of the other matters set out in Sub-section 4 (c) of Clause I. How are these people to know that the coalowner—or the owner of coal, if you like, because there may be some distinction—or the person who ought to have registered, has registered, and if he has not, he obviously may obtain a substantially larger sum than he would if the nature of this liability were known. It seems to me that at this stage we should have some assurance before the matter assumes its final form that these people will have an opportunity of making quite sure that their position has been protected, and that the owner is not in fact receiving a greater sum of money than the restrictions on his ownership warrant.
I cannot understand why there is this objection to publicity. There is in my constituency only one royalty owner, a very wealthy one—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On any day that I pluck

up the courage to do so, I can come to this House and ask the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) any question I please about the ownership of coal, the restrictions on it, the amount received in royalties and anything else connected with that matter, and no one has ever raised the slightest objection to my doing so. That may be because the coal belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is specially sacred, and is therefore taken entirely out of the rules. All I know is that my constituents believe the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be the most hard-hearted and conscienceless coal royalty owners in the country. However, it has long been recognised in the House that their transactions in this matter may be questioned. Why they should be put in a class apart as people whose conduct may be inquired into and the other people be put in another class and protected from questioning in the House and elsewhere, I cannot understand.

While I represent a coal-mining constituency, I do not think it should be thought that the miners are the only people who are interested in this matter. Obviously the general public, who are to be asked in the subsequent Bill to buy these people out at a figure that has been agreed, are also very considerably interested in the matter. After the example given this evening by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), an assurance should be given that there will be the greatest amount of publicity, so that all people who think they are in any way remotely connected with this matter and have any financial interest in it, may have an opportunity of making their voices heard before the money is paid and the royalties have become the property of the State.

Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 91.

Division No. 301.]
AYES.
[12.23 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bird, Sir R. B.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bossom, A. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Balniel, Lord
Boulton, W. W.


Apsley, Lord
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.


Aske,Sir R. W.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Boyce, H. Leslie


Assheton, R.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brass, Sir W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bernays, R. H.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund




Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Ponsonby, Col, C. E.


Bull, B. B.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Porritt, R. W.


Burghley, Lord
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Procter, Major H. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cary, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsbotham, H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holmes, J. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Channon, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Robinson, J. R.(Blackpool)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hunter, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rowlands, G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Joel, D. J. B.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Salt. E. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Scott, Lord William


Cox, H. B. T.
Kimball, L.
Selley, H. R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Critchley, A.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Crookshank, Capt.
H. F. C. Liddell, W. S.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cross, R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lyons, A. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


De Chair, S. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Spens, W. P.


Dodd, J. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Doland, G. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Duggan, H. J.
Magnay, T.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Eastwood, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Eckersley, P. T.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Turton, R. H.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Elmley, Viscount
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emery, J. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir V.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moreing, A. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Findlay, Sir E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col A. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fleming, E. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Furness, S. N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wragg, H.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peak., O.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Peat, C. U.



Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro




NOES.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGhee, H. G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacLaren, A.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Batey, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mander, G. le M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Maxton, J.


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Messer, F.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Oliver, G. H.


Daggar, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Paling, W.


Dalton, H.
Hollins, A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hopkin, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.


Debbie, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton. T. M.


Foot, D. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Silkin, L.


Frankel, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.







Stephen, C.
Tinker, J. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. McL.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Westwood, J.



Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
White, H. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

12.32 a.m.

Mr. MacLaren: Before we pass this Clause I think it is appropriate that some comment should be made. If I were asked to illustrate this Clause, I would do it by a graphic drawing of a red piece of vegetable and a pair of pants, because the President of the Board of Trade tells us that the inspiring policy behind the Clause is more the carrot than the donkey. That is to say, he was going to induce the owners of the rights in coal to make a voluntary registration. That being so, everything else in the Clause naturally followed. It is hard really to appreciate the position in which the Government now find themselves. It is true we have been told that circumstances will not permit a first-class Measure being launched at this time, and therefore there is something in the nature of—shall I say?—a sign that something is going to be done and here we have it in this Bill.
I will not detain the Committee for long, but I think it is the duty of the Committee in a very important Clause like this to say something about it before we leave it. I merely repeat the point that we have to have a sign that something is to be done. Therefore this Bill has been launched, at least it is being brought before the House. We have got to induce by every possible device a voluntary confession of ownership by voluntary inducement; no coercion and no public exhibition of the facts when ascertained, and then, let it be observed that the main success of this registration will depend upon the easy passage in the Law Courts of any litigation that may arise out of the registration. There are a number of lawyers in this House, and I do not think they will say I am stretching the facts if I give this illustration. There will be a good number of owners of property in coal who will not wish to be registered either voluntarily or compulsorily, and an unemployed lawyer will go to them and say: "The Government is going to bring in legislation. I am out of a job"—

Mr. Turton: Would not the lawyer be debarred from or turned out of his profession?

Mr. MacLaren: Yes, I agree, if he did it the way I was saying. But we are met in private circumstances where we can talk freely without endangering professional etiquette. It would be likely for long processes of litigation to be carried on. The public purse is there to pay the costs, and two things happen—the lawyer is kept busy with a good refresher in fees out of the State funds and there would be prolonged arguments. You are giving employment to the lawyer on the one hand, and suspending a definite entry in the Registry on the other. It is interesting to note that having agreed, or having voted in this House for voluntary registration, we were brought up against the difficulty of sanctions. On this side of the House we proposed that there should be compulsory registration. For reasons of time compulsory registration cannot be contemplated. It must be voluntary. But it was interesting to notice—and I think the Government were quite logical here—that if you have voluntary registration it is quite impossible to have any form of sanction, because it must be assumed that those who are asked to register under this Bill have not in the slightest degree any idea of what is likely to happen when this Bill is passed. That being so, there is no chance of bringing in a sanction unless it is linked to some definite measure well known to those who are called upon to register.
So if one takes this point in conjunction with a passage in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in the previous Debate on this Bill one comes to this startling situation: that those who voluntarily enter details in the Register under this Bill, according to what we have been told, may still have a right to have these details revised in the light of new circumstances and the new Bill when it is brought in. What does this mean? It means that when a compulsory registration has been made and completed after a long process of litigation involving the expenditure of public money, legal processes and all the rest will be nullified in view of the major Bill. It means that


money spent under this Act will be money thrown away, because all that will be arrived at by registration under the Act will be subject to revision later on.
There is another thing that seems to be missed out. Take certain towns in the north of England. I see that servitudes, covenants and restrictions are to be taken into account. But all over this country, and more especially in the north, you see rows of cottages lying at all angles. In Wales I have seen them. You ask—"Are these miners' cottages? Has there been an earthquake?"—"Oh, no, we are using the coal seams underneath." There is nothing here to stop that kind of thing. In fact, if I am the owner of coal or any right to exploit coal from underneath the entire town, I will be entered in the register as valid for full compensation for coal under public buildings and people's houses. Then what will happen? The Government will be expected in future, after paying compensation for the rights, not to exploit that coal and not to undermine people's houses. The public will feel, and probably rightly so, that when the State is the owner and controller of the coal seams, the State should not do what the private owner did, namely, proceed to undermine public buildings and people's houses. Then you will have a situation in which the State, having paid compensation to the owners, will not exploit the coal.
There is nothing in this Bill to protect the public at the moment; the owners will be compensated and then quite probably whole communities in the country will prohibit the Government from exploiting the coal after having paid the previous royalty owner to clear out. There is no restriction on that point. My own feeling about the Bill is that it will accomplish very little. It may be that a number of flies may be brought into the spider's parlour and openly confess to the country what their holdings are, but even if they do, my opinion is, after the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that all that may be confessed here is subject to alteration later on, that it is utterly futile to go on with the Bill.
Last, but not least, there has been quoted to-night the previous Act under which it was stipulated that all details entered in the register should remain private. I want to say this again, though I have said it before. It has been the characteristic of every Act dealing with

land that any details that are given under the Bill shall be kept secret. It was the old trouble with the Finance Act, 1909—an Act which was quoted to-night to support the contention that secrecy should be observed on what was in the register. The Government seem to forget there was a Finance Act of 1931 and that one of the Clause in that Act was that every detail regarding the holding of land and the value to be fixed for the sites, whatever they might be, would have been made public if that Finance Act had been passed into law and not destroyed, and the details so ascertained by the Government would have been open to public inspection in almost every town hall in the country. That was in 1931. Why was not that quoted to-night as a precedent? There is no reason that I know of why this should not be persisted with for the great basis of life and of wealth production, on which we are called upon to spend millions in defending, namely, the land. Why, when we come to deal with that, should no details be made public? I care not for any previous Registration Act—not in the slightest. If it has been the practice in the past, then that practice ought to be broken.
It will not sound very wise to the country when it is heralded abroad that the reason why the details we have asked for to-night are not to be made public is because there might be something intimidating in them in respect of the vested interests of those who own the holdings. Secrecy with regard to registration in this case must naturally follow voluntary registration, but I put a question to the Minister asking if the details given in the register would become public when the registration becomes obligatory. He quoted the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that the details in the register would be public after the royalties had become the property of the State. Surely there is an interim period between the pronouncement that registration shall be obligatory and the time when there shall be the total transfer of the entire royalties to the State, in which the details can be made public but, apparently, it is not to be so. I conclude by saying that I do really consider, in spite of all the indulgence for which the Government may ask—because the Government have asked for indulgence on the ground that there is


not time enough to pass the major Act with all its obligations, and therefore they come forward with this Bill to get the preparatory work done before the major Bill is brought in—in spite of that, we have been wasting our time in discussing this Bill at all. You are not ensuring that the facts you want shall be facts which shall be unalterable and you are putting on the State the cost of getting them, and when you have got them they are to be subject to revision when another Act is brought in. Therefore, this Bill is clearly nothing but window-dressing. We have been promised a Bill dealing with royalties, and we see no attempt to deal with them drastically. All that is being done is to put goods in the window.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses of Board of Trade.)

All expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and shall not be taken into account in computing the amount of the expenses of the Department of Mines for the purposes of the limit imposed by Subsection (2) of Section five of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, upon the expenses of that Department.—[Captain Crooks hank.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.

12.48 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, at the end, to add:
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph the Board shall pay the costs (including costs of or incidental to proceedings on an application made to the Court under Part I of this Schedule) reasonably incurred by the person by whom an application for the registration of particulars in respect of a holding is duly made in giving effect in relation to that holding to the provisions of Part I of this Schedule or of the rules made thereunder relating to the rights and duties of a person by whom an application is made, and for the purposes of this provision costs so incurred by that person as a person notified, under sub-paragraph (2) (b) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, of an application received in respect of another holding shall be deemed to have been incurred in relation to the first-mentioned holding:

Provided that, if two or more applications are made in relation to the same holding, the liability of the Board under this sub-paragraph shall be limited to such a sum as would have been payable by them it a single application only had been made so however that the Board may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the making of more than one application was justified having regard to any special circumstances.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, where any facts particulars whereof are registered in respect of a holding have been ascertained from information furnished by a person notified, under sub-paragraph (2) (a) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, of an application received in respect thereof, the Board shall pay the costs (including costs of or incidental to proceedings on an application made to the Court under Part I of this Schedule) reasonably incurred by him in giving effect in relation to that holding to the provisions of Part I of this Schedule or of the rules made thereunder relating to the rights and duties of a person so notified.
(3) The Board shall not he liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid incurred either—
(a) in relation to a holding in respect of which no application for the registration of particulars is duly made within the period of six months beginning as to England and Scotland respectively on the date on which notice is first published in the London Gazette and in the Edinburgh Gazette respectively of rules having been made by the Board with respect to the procedure for the making of applications, or the date on which the holding comes into existence, whichever is the later, or, in the case of a holding constituted by virtue of rules made under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to this Act, within such extended period as may be prescribed, so however that this provision shall rot have effect as regards a holding in respect of which application is made after the expiration of the said period in a case in which it appears to the Board that sufficient cause is shown for no application having been made within the said period; or
(b) in relation to a holding in the case of which it appears to the Board that there is no reasonable ground for believing that any coal hereditaments in which the holding is stated to subsist have any marketable value; or
(c) by a person who has neglected to comply with any of the requirements of Part I of this Schedule or of the rules made thereunder relating to the information to be given by him, whether on the original making of the application or thereafter.
The High Court shall have power on the application of a person aggrieved by a denial on the part of the Board by virtue of this sub-paragraph of liability to pay any such costs as aforesaid, to give such directions as to the matter in question as appear to the Court to be just.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the Board shall pay the costs of or incidental to proceedings on an application made to the Court under Part I of this


Schedule reasonably incurred by a person whom the Court, under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 2 or under that sub-paragraph as applied by sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule, directs to be made a party to the application.
(5) The Court may direct that the Board shall not be liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid incurred by any party to an application made to the Court under Part I of this Schedule who appears to the Court to have made such an application or prosecuted proceedings thereon unreasonably or to have been guilty of any such unreasonable failure to agree with the Board or with any other party, or of any such negligence or default, as to disentitle him to payment of his costs.
(6) The Board shall have power to enter into undertakings to pay, and to pay, any costs other than as aforesaid reasonably incurred by any person in furnishing to the Board information for the purposes of this Act.
(7) Any costs that the Board are liable under or by virtue of this Part of this Schedule to pay shall, if the Board or the person entitled to payment thereof so requires, be taxed and settled by the High Court, and any apportionment required to be made for the purposes of the proviso to subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall, if any person concerned in the apportionment so requires, be made by the High Court.
This sub-paragraph shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if for references to the High Court there were substituted references to the Auditor of the Court of Session.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that the Board shall not pay any costs incurred by or attributable to, nor any costs so far as they may have been increased by reason of any question as to who is the owner of any proprietary interest.
The point that I want to make is with reference to the costs. The Bill provides that persons coming forward to register their proprietary interests shall have the costs of registration paid, including costs involved in their being either taken to the courts by the Board of Trade to have things cleared up or in certain instances of their going to the court themselves to get one matter or another cleared up to their own advantage or getting a decision reversed. A very great deal of objection might be taken to that, but the objection we have is on a relatively narrow point, and we put it on this footing: We assume that the owners of coal royalties have the same moral claim as the owners of other property to have their costs paid when there is compulsory purchase and acquisition. It is a big assumption, because the moral rights of various forms of property

owners must vary, and I do not think I ever knew anybody who did not put the right of coal royalties pretty low in the moral scale. Yet the Government actually propose to put them higher in the moral scale in the matter of receiving costs than any other body of owners who have ever been subject to compulsory purchase or acquisition.
Why I say that is this: It is clear that in fact in one provision or another of this Bill and Schedule the question of which of two persons has a title to a particular unit of ownership is bound to arise in a certain number of cases. It is a uniform rule, which has been applied by all tribunals, that in the case of litigation between two people's claims to a piece of property which is to be acquired, costs are not to be paid by the acquiring party, whether the State, some public utility, or a municipality. There is a quite clear distinction between that and the case of acquisition because the party is having the property taken away for the benefit of the community or someone else. Where the question is which of two parties owns the property to be taken, it has always been the rule, in every form of compensation for compulsory acquisition, that they and no one else shall bear the cost of the litigation. The Bill makes it clear that the intention in the future is that so many cases—and I think there will be a substantial number—of people disputing between themselves the possession of coal royalties shall be put in a more favourable position than any have been put in before. It is utterly indefensible. It could only have emanated from a Government like this. It is almost impossible for a Government like this to defend it, and it is quite impossible for a Government like this to produce any reason for it.

12.54 a.m.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is exercised by this problem. He envisages a time when there will be a sum of compensation to be distributed, and he envisages the possibility of there being a question of whether "A" or "B" is entitled to that compensation. He is anxious that the dispute between "A" and "B" shall not be fought out at the expense of the State. That is a question which is undoubtedly very important, but it does not arise under this Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with compensation or its destination.

Mr. Silverman: Neither has the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: The Amendment has to do with disputes as to right, and the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was related to the subject I have mentioned. This Bill deals, not with the ultimate allotment of compensation, but with the registration of the units of ownership. It is perfectly true that in deciding exactly what these units of ownership are the question of title may arise, although I do not think it will be very likely to arise very often. It is also true that the question of title may arise in identifying the question of ownership. We can, therefore, confine ourselves to that rather limited number of cases in which there is a possibility of dispute. The matter raised by the Amendment is safeguarded in this way: The applicant can only take the matter to the courts under paragraphs (2) and (4) of the Second Schedule if it arises on particulars required by the Board of Trade. Unless the Board of Trade thinks that to make a question of title a necessary particular is necessary, no dispute as to it can be taken to the courts. The Board of Trade itself will only take the matter to the court if it thinks the matter is necessary in order to identify the holdings to be registered. That safeguards the matter. As far as the other matter is concerned, here again the Board of Trade will only require the particulars necessary in order to identify the holdings, and disputes which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind can be left over by the Board of Trade. I doubt whether any of the particulars would be necessary for the purposes of this Bill. The Board of Trade are completely masters of the situation. I think the Committee will agree with us that this Amendment is not necessary.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: The one thing which makes us absolutely convinced that a matter of doubt raised by this Bill exists in a far more serious form is the Government spokesman's attempt to explain it away. If nonsense is a Parliamentary word, it is utter nonsense for the Attorney-General to get up and pretend that the question of title will not arise. The Financial Memorandum is not part of the Bill, but lines one and two of it state:

The object of this Bill is to enable the Board of Trade to register particulars of the present ownership of coal …
Clause 1 of the Bill is entitled "Registration of particulars of ownership," and certain matters of title which have to be dealt with are mentioned. Is it really supposed, even by this Committee, that Parliament is to be asked to pass a Bill in which the owner will come and ask for registration and supply the particulars, and that the actual register will not mention the name of the estate owner? This register is to be preserved from the gaze of Labour propaganda. Is it not absolutely futile to say that it will not have some bearing on ultimate compensation? If it has, will not the Board of Trade, even under this Government, have some regard to putting down the right owner, and in the long run, when compensation comes to be paid in a later Bill, if they bring it in, will not somebody be registered as owner, and will not his registration have some bearing on the ownership of that unit? If all these questions are to be answered, the only way in which they can be answered is by the Board of Trade, which has to determine whether the particulars are correct and to decide if they shall be registered. The Board of Trade must try to find out whether is is the right name of the owner or the wrong name, and it may be asked who is or who is not the owner. This Government is determined for the first time in history to say that not merely the cost of registration and acquisition but also the cost of settling these disputes as to who is the owner of the property to receive the compensation shall be paid out of the public pocket instead of the
pocket of the interested parties. If the Board of Trade cannot decide on this question, the matter must be referred to the courts, and the courts are not cheap, and all that is to be paid out of the public pocket again. And then the Attorney-General gets up and says this Bill has nothing to do with ownership.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 163.

Division No. 302.]
AYES.
[1.3 a.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Barr, J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Batey, J.
Buchanan, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Bellenger, F. J.
Burke, W. A.




Daggar, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.


Dalton, H.
Holdsworth, H.
Ritson, J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hollins, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Dobbie, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Ede, J. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Silverman, S. S.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Foot, D. M.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Frankel, D.
Lunn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stephen, C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grenfell, D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.



Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Peake, O.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Peat, C. U.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Assheton, R.
Fleming, E. L.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Porritt, R. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Furness, S. N.
Procter, Major H. A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Radford, E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Rankin, Sir R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bernays, R. H.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guy, J. C. M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Bull, [...]. B.
Higgs, W. F.
Salmon, Sir I.


Burghley, Lord
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Scott, Lord William


Cartland, J. R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
James, Wing-Commands' A. W. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Channon, H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Spens, W. P.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cox, H. B. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lyons, A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Critchley, A.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Turton, R. H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
MoCorquodale, M. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Cross, R. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crowder, J F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Warrender, Sir V.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McKie, J. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Maitland, A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


De Chair, S. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dodd, J. S.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Doland, G. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wragg, H.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Eckersley, P. T.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ellis, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Elmley, Viscount
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Munro.


Emery, J. F.
Palmer, G. E. H.

Proposed words there added.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1935.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
1. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1936, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Army Services, 1935, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army …
—
7,190
3
11
98,637
1
5
—


2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.
—
—
55,848
17
9
437
9
8


3
Medical Services
—
—
4,078
11
7
11,524
5
8


4
Educational Establishments.
6,415
12
5
—
—
9,940
19
5


5
Quartering and Movements
—
332,035
8
6
365,595
10
 4
—


6
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.
136,765
1
2
—
—
18,514
5
5


7
Clothing
16,927
3
10
—
—
4,411
 3
 9


8
General Stores
133,841
18
8
—
—
35,214
6
 8


9
Warlike Stores
—
—
252,222
5
11
27,583
 15
11


10
Works, Buildings and Lands.
—
—
89,104 9 8
9
8
28,275
12
10


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
14,316
9
0
3,999
12
8
—


12
War Office
—
—
5,751
8
7
1,002
0
11


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.
—
486
9
7
12,843
3
0
—


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers,
Men, and others.
—
—
14,501
7
6
1,476
17
8


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.
6,857
6
0
—
—
230
7
4


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
2,229
8
5
—
—
—




303,036
10
6
354,028
11
0
902,582
3
5
138,611
5
3




Total Deficits
£657,065
1
6
Total Surpluses
£1,041,193
13
8





Net Surplus …
£384,128
12
2

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. Benn: Are we to have the compliment of an explanation?

those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £384,128 12s. 2d., namely:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
1,041,193
13
8


Total Deficits
…
657,065
1
6


Net Surplus
…
£384,128
12
2

1.12 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The right hon. Gentleman will know that this is an annual Measure. I have been looking up the records of previous occasions, and I see that it has been quite usual for the House to accept it.

Mr. Kelly: Not at this hour of the night.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes. The position is that every Appropriation Act contains a Section, in this instance Section 4 of the Appropriation Act, 1935, and Section 4 of the Act of 1936, authorising the temporary transfer of any surpluses arising on any of the Navy, Army, or Air Votes, to meet a deficiency in the realised appropriation in aid of any other Navy, Army, or Air Votes or expenditure in any such Votes in excess of the Estimate or in defraying expenditure not provided in the Estimates which it may be detrimental to the Service to postpone. The aggregate expenditure on such Services must not, however, exceed the aggregate sums appropriated by the Acts for those Services. Treasury authority is necessary for those, but the Treasury authority in this connection is only temporary, and it has to be confirmed by Parliament. To this end, the Appropriation Acts to which I have referred provided that statements showing the circumstances in which the sanction for the temporary use of surpluses was given should be laid before Parliament, and that was done in January last. The final stage is to obtain Parliamentary sanction for the permanent application of the surpluses, and that is done by the present Resolutions, which lead up to a Clause in the Appropriation Bill, 1937, which will shortly be introduced. The accounts, of course, have been reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General and have been the subject of examination by the Public Accounts Committee. The report of the Public Accounts Committee

is now available. That is the explanation of the Resolution.

1.16 a.m.

Mr. Benn: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but we are dealing with serious matters, the transfer of money which is provided for the Defence Services. The first question that I would ask is, Where is the Secretary of State for War? We all respect the Financial Secretary, but he is not competent to explain why one Service was starved and another Service was supplied with money. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this Debate was a mere formality. This is not a formality at all. It is a very serious proceeding. I remember the first occasion on which I was at one of these Debates—I am ashamed to say it was 31 years ago—when not only was Mr. McKenna present, but Mr. Haldane, the Secretary of State for War, was there to explain. Therefore, Captain Bourne, I would ask you if you would accept a Motion to report Progress in order that we may have the advantage of the attendance of the Secretary of State for War to explain these matters. I have looked these matters up—as the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs would say, I have "mugged" them up—and I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 135.

Division No, 303.]
AYES.
[1.17 a.m.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silverman, S. S.


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J
Atholl, Duchess of
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bernays, R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Balniel, Lord
Bossom, A. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Boulton, W. W.


Assheton, R.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.




Boyce, H. Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Butcher, H. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cary, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W.


Clarke, Lt. Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Scott, Lord William


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Joel, D. J. B.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cox, H. B. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Critchley, A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Spens, W. P.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lloyd, G. W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dodd, J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Doland, G. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sutcliffe, H.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, J. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Turton, R. H.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Fildes, Sir H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Findlay, Sir E.
Moreing, A. C.
Warrender, Sir V.


Fleming, E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Peake, O.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Wragg, H.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Procter, Major H. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.



Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rankin, Sir R.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.




Munro.


Question, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned," put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Benn: I regret that I cannot comment on the decision of the Committee not to report Progress, or that we have not the advantage of the presence of the Secretary of State for War. I may make no improper comment on the decision of the House when I say it is a shocking thing that the Government should not show the Committee respect by ensuring the presence of the Minister. Perhaps he does not yet know he is Secretary of State for War. But having decided that point, let me now come to the merits of the case. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has explained the machinery with perfect accuracy, but this is not merely a question of machinery but one of substance. I do not want to take up time in criticism until I have heard the explanation which, no doubt, the representative of the War Office will give us as to these surpluses and their distribution in other directions. I would point out that the Financial Secretary cannot possibly have any knowledge, such as the Secretary of State for War would have, of the reasons of policy which make it necessary to divert sums

from one purpose to another. Therefore, I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he would give us some explanation of these various deficits and surpluses. and not just to tell us That they have been before the Public Accounts Committee and before the Controller and Auditor-General. That we know perfectly well, and it has already been stated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. What we want to know from the representative of the War Office, who has the heavy burden of carrying here alone the responsibilities of his great office, is the reason for these things, because we have some criticisms to make about the diversion of sums from one purpose to another. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the War Office will open the Debate by explaining the details.

1.27 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I am happy to comply with the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, but I must confess I feel some degree of embarrassment since he opened his previous speech by saying he did not think I was capable of giving an explanation. There is no matter of policy concerned here. What the Committee is


asked to do is to give Parliamentary authority to a procedure which has already been authorised by the Treasury and the War Office, and to apply surpluses arising on one Vote or one subhead to meet deficits on another subhead. The surpluses and deficits are made up of a hundred and one different items and to give the Committee an explanation of every one of them at this hour of the morning would require a great deal of time. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends attach so much importance to these points, an easier mode of procedure would have been to let me know beforehand which were the particular points in which they took most interest, and then these could have been proceeded with in a more speedy and businesslike fashion. I would suggest that probably the easiest way to proceed to-night would be to let me know what particular information is required. I would be only too glad to give that information, but as there are 101 items it is rather difficult to give the information without notice.

Mr. Benn: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman will move to report Progress that the information may be given?

Mr. Mainwaring: Why should the time of the day or night affect the information to be given? If it is required it should be given independent of the time? If it is valuable in the afternoon, it is equally valuable in the morning. If these things are to be divulged, let the hon. Gentleman do it to-night.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. Ede: It is very regrettable that the Financial Secretary should treat the Committee in this way. We are all well aware that his chief went to the 1922 Committee the other day. I had it from a report in the public Press. He listened to what they had to say on matters concerned with the Army. Even the House of Commons is more important than the 1922 Committee and we might have at least as much courtesy. Let us take these 15 items. The first one deals with the pay of Mr. Thomas Atkins which was over-estimated by £98,637 1s. 5d. That may be due to the fact that recruiting was short or that proficiency pay and certain other extras, which are very much beloved by the private soldier and the N.C.O., were not issued to the extent

expected. If that is so, the Financial Secretary will realise that that was not very popular with the Army. There was a deficit of £7,190 3s. 11d. under the head of Pay, etc., of the Army. Can the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what was the cause of that, and is it likely that this deficit will continue in the years to come? I notice that the Territorial Forces also showed a surplus of £55,848 17s. 9d. Is there anything more in that than shortage
of recruiting? Is it partly due to the condition of affairs so graphically described on one occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who found one of the antiaircraft sections carried through its drill in dumb show because they had not the necessary apparatus? Is this the way that that finally appears in the national balance sheet?
I notice that there is a surplus of estimated over gross expenditure of £365,595 10s. 4d. in quartering and movements. It is true that it is set off by a sum of £332,035 8s. 6d. of deficiencies compared with actual receipts. What receipts do the Government get from moving troops? When I was moved by the Government I was never called upon to pay my fare although I would sometimes have willingly paid my fare in an opposite direction. There is also a surplus of £252,222 5s. 11d. in warlike stores. This is at a time when we understood the Government were engaged in bringing the equipment of the nation up to adequate strength. Does that represent the failure of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to get an adequate supply of war material?
I am sure I have indicated enough for the hon. Gentleman to let him understand that these are matters of great concern. It is a great pity that his chief is not here. I see that his Parliamentary Private Secretary is here and I hope he will convey to his chief the great interest the House takes in these matters and the sense of disappointment at his failure to be here to-night. I can only say that it is a very good thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) is not here, or he would extract some amusement from his promotion to War Minister.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hardly think that arises.

Mr. Ede: Then I can only express my regret. I notice, also, that the War Office was estimated to cost £5,751 more than was expended. I hope that means that the staff at the War Office has had less chance of rendering the Army inefficient than in the old days. My recollection of the views of the private soldier is that the Army might have won the War in considerably less time but for the War Office. I hope that the reduction of expenditure on that head means that the Army Council has reached the conclusion that there is one item on which the country has sound reasons for rejoicing that there is a surplus.

1.38 a.m.

Mr. Davidson: I had intended to come into the House quietly and listen seriously to the explanation of the Secretary of State for War on matters which, to my regret, and that of my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War has not deemed his presence necessary in the Committee. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has been advised not to take part in the discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee has already decided on that. It cannot be raised again.

Mr. Davidson: If it has been effectively met before I will not do so. There are one or two points which, from my former material interest in the Army, I want to raise. I do hope that it will be realised that our queries are put forward with sincere interest in this subject. We hope we shall get as effective a reply as we possibly can. There are one or two items here which, I think, the hon. Gentleman will recognise as very serious that huge surpluses amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds should be transferred to meet deficits.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is covered by statutory authority and we cannot discuss the merits or demerits.

Mr. Benn: On the occasion to which I referred earlier Mr. Haldane made an explanation regarding the transfer of sums from one expenditure to another, and I would respectfully submit to you that it is in order to ask why a sum has been expended on a purpose other than that for which it was provided.

The Deputy-Chairman: The point is that the method of the payments is

covered by statutory authority and that this is not the occasion on which to raise it. It is in order to ask why there is a surplus.

Mr. Davidson: I think some explanation should be made with regard to these surpluses. I would like to ask for some information on the question of medical services. Many Members who have been in His Majesty's Forces know perfectly well with regard to medical services that the old Army doctors used to recommend the very well-known Number 9 for nearly all soldiers' complaints. I would like to know if that is still the practice, and if it is the practice does it account for the amount placed here? On medical services we see that the surpluses of estimated over actual gross expenditure was £4,078 11s. 7d., and that the surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts was £11,524 5s. 8d. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to tell me how many Number 9's this will account for and exactly what medicines have been used. How are these figures arrived at with regard to this service, as it is one of the most important services in the Army? If we have not qualified persons to give the necessary medicine to our soldiers when necessary, we are in danger of being dominated by some oversea Power.
There is another question in which we are interested on this side of the Committee, and that is in regard to educational establishments. We always consider that this is a very important branch of Army life and that the soldier of today with his keener mentality, or, as I said on a previous occasion, with a higher mentality than his officers, is entitled to receive as efficient an educational system as he can get in civilian life, and probably even a more efficient educational system in order to counteract the effects of Army life. Under the head of Educational Establishments we have excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure of £6,415 12s. 5d., with surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts of nearly £10,000. I would like to know what steps are being taken in regard to educational establishments to see to it that the Government and the Secretary of State for War are recognising the value of educational establishments.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter which the hon. Member must raise on the Estimates. He can ask why there is a surplus but he cannot ask general questions of policy.

Mr. Davidson: I was wondering if we could have an explanation in regard to this sum of money for warlike stores which is placed No. 9 on the programme. I have seen many things that could be described as warlike stores. I have seen right hon. Gentlemen opposite dressed in a way that could be described as warlike stores. There is a tremendous amount of money, a surplus of over £250,000 over actual gross expenditure as compared with receipts of £27,583 15s. 11d. I hope we will get some information in regard to that and why the Department is so far out in its estimates. There is also the item of balances irrecoverable and claims abandoned amounting to £2,229 8s. 5d., and I would like to know how these figures are arrived at. I think we should have some reassurance on this point in order that we can reassure our constituents as to their future safety. I would like to have information on these matters in order that these points can be put side by side with recruiting posters throughout the country. If that is done, I am certain that recruiting will be worse in the future than it has been in the past.

Mr. Kelly: I wish to ask a question. There is a statement going around that many of these surpluses deal with Gibraltar. I am told that much that might have been expended there has been saved. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his explanation make it clear how much has been saved with regard to Gibraltar on the No. 9 vote as well as the No. 8 vote in regard to stores? I notice that the Under-Secretary for Air seems to be very comfortable as no questions were asked of him—

1.51 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not covered here.

Sir V. Warrender: I hope the Committee will not think there was any lack of respect on the part of the Secretary of State in not being here to-night. The Opposition will realise that it has been the practice for many years past that these Resolutions should be taken by the Financial Secretary. If hon. Members

opposite had armed themselves previously with a copy of the Army Appropriation Account, 1935, they would have found the answer to a great many of the questions they have asked to-night, and those of them who are so interested as to arm themselves with a copy will be interested to see an extensive explanation given of the reasons why the deficits have been incurred and how the surpluses have arisen. Broadly speaking, most of these surpluses arise, in part out of the number of men in the Army being fewer than was estimated at the time the estimate was made. Some of the items arise out of the fact that the Army was put to a great expense because of the Abyssinian emergency, and some of them arise out of mistakes in estimating. When a Department is charged with estimating for such a huge sum as the Service Departments it is only human nature that occasionally small errors should be made, and where a small error does occur, and we have a surplus on one Vote, it does seem to me to be only common sense that that surplus should be used for making good where a deficit has been incurred. But all these Votes mentioned by the hon. Members opposite, except possibly Vote 9 dealing with warlike stores, which was due mainly to delays, arise out of expenditure which we had to incur in such cases as sending troops out to the Mediterranean to meet the Abyssinian emergency. They naturally upset a great many of our calculations.
Taking the account as a whole the variations really are not very excessive when you consider the enormous sums of money with which they deal. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked about any possible saving affecting Gibraltar. That hardly arises on these accounts. If he wishes to pursue that subject, I shall be only too glad to give him the information, but there is nothing in this account so far as I know which applies to the question. If he had given me previous notice I should have been able to give it to him. I hope that now the hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed their views upon what seems to them a very curious form of procedure, they will realise that we have nothing to hide at all, and if they look at the Accounts they will see a full and adequate explanation given under the various sub-heads.

1.56 a.m.

Mr. Benn: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman very sincerely on tackling a difficult problem with great address and ability, although I still think that his Chief should be here. Unfortunately his figures are all wrong. He has a knowledge of all the documents from which the facts can be obtained. I, of course, have read this appropriation account and I think he does it more than justice if he describes it as giving a full answer to the interesting and important questions raised by my hon. Friends behind me. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) raised a question under works and lands, under Vote 10, subhead C, and the hon. and gallant Baronet said the money had been spent because of the Abyssinian war.

Sir V. Warrender: I did not say that.

Mr. Benn: I understood the hon. and gallant Baronet to say that the Abyssinian war caused this expenditure.

Sir V. Warrender: Not on that particular Vote. In many of these cases the expenditure has been due to the fact that we have been put to expenditure which we did not foresee owing to the Abyssinian dispute, but I was not referring to that particularly on Vote 10.

Mr. Benn: Of course I accept the explanation. This Vote 10, sub-head C, is really in a way the most interesting of the Votes. Here is a Vote which puts a sum of money equivalent to £3,384,000 at the service of the Secretary of State for War for the construction and maintenance of warlike strong points at home and abroad. The extraordinary thing about it is—this is one of our complaints—that on this Vote they have effected a saving of £91,000 when, as has been shown, they should have been attending to the fortifications of the western entrance to the Mediterranean, and that is why we ask the question about Gibraltar, I was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that he was always ready to give information about Gibraltar. A dentist has a simple job compared with great experts like the right hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in obtaining information from the War Office about Gibraltar. Since he is so willing, however, no doubt he is willing to give us the information in the

course of this Debate as it proceeds. I will give what information I can from the reports to which the War Office representative refers. The net surplus on this Vote is £384,000. The difference between Civil Service Estimates and the Service Estimates is that the Civil Service Estimates start with a Vote on account which is at the disposition of all the officers of the Civil Service, but the Service Estimates start with a general Vote—

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this particular occasion.

Mr. Benn: Very well. I was trying to explain the underlying arrangements, but I do not want to pursue that. The net surplus shown on the War Office Vote is £384,000. It may be voted for Vote 10, on page 204 of the Estimates. We find that we voted £155,400 for various stations abroad for adapting defence to modern requirements. That was the description. On this Vote, Vote 10, subhead C, we find a saving of £91,000 and we want to know how much of that should have been spent in bringing Gibraltar into a state of defence, and how much was not spent. Now the Financial Secretary to the War Office tells my hon. Friend that he would give him plenty of information about Gibraltar if he would only give him notice, but he could not possibly give it at the present because he had not it ready to hand. As a matter of fact, if the hon. and gallant Baronet had read the report of the Appropriation Account of the Army he will find that in this report we are given a detailed statement about the expenditure at Gibraltar.
I am sorry to be called upon as a private Member of this House to give all this information. It is all set out in a special table, and ever since the year 1883 it has been ordered that expenditure under various heads for these fortifications abroad should be set out. Perhaps the representative of the Air Ministry, who has had plenty of time to prepare for the questions which may be put during the course of further discussion, may refresh his memory from the report which has so constantly been referred to and give us a little more information. Could he tell us why, under sub-head C, which mentions £155,000 for War Office supplies to date, there is a saving at a time when Members of the party opposite are complaining that the Government have failed to put the Rock of Gibraltar in an effective state?

Mr. Paling: A very definite question has been asked and the Minister should now have had time to be able to give the information asked for.

Sir V. Warrender: I make no complaint at all but I suggest if points of detail were to be raised, I should have been given notice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am trying to explain the difficulty I have in giving information at such short notice. There are a hundred and one items, and it is quite impossible for anybody to keep all the details in their heads. We have many defended ports besides Gibraltar.

Mr. Benn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the definition of General Franco that it is not of much importance?

Sir V. Warrender: I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on the Spanish situation. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know why there is a surplus of £91,767 under sub-head C of Vote 10. On page 22 of the accounts he will see it says that the progress of the services undertaken in consequence of the special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute was slower than had been anticipated in the Supplementary Estimate. In that Estimate we took £200,000 and as we were unable to expend what we had taken as quickly as we hoped, there remained to us at the end of the Account this surplus of £91,000.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Kelly: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that had I known this Vote

was going to be taken to-night I would have given him notice in order that he might have been fully prepared, but I had not expected that the Government would attempt to rush this through at this hour of the morning and give no opportunity for explanations with regard to Gibraltar and other places. I will confine myself to Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman well knows that one is deeply concerned about the people who are employed there in the service of the War Department. Certain information does come to one and it is because of that and the restive feeling there that I put questions to him as to the savings made, which is believed to be unwarranted.

Original Question put.

The Committee proceeded to a Division; Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Grimston were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared the Ayes had it.

Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
11. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1936, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £80,814 15s. 1d., namely:




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
154,394
9
3


Total Deficits
…
73,579
14
2


Net Surplus
…
£180,814
15
1

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Air Services, 1935, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.
—
—
39,178
16
3
10,931
1
7


2
Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transportation.
5,474
14
4
—
—
307
5
6


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research
Services).
50,824
9
11
—
—
12,779
9
4


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands.
—
9,292
14
8
44,807
13
3
—


5
Medical Services …
3,079
9
9
—
—
1,807
8
1


6
Technical Training and Educational Services.
—
—
7,551
3
4
146
17
9


7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces.
—
—
14,122
7
7
71
1
10


8
Civil Aviation
—
414
11
6
18,115
7
2
—


9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
527
18
6
1,480
4
4


10
Air Ministry
4,022
0
2
—
—
1,545
19
11


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
—
—
890
4
6
131
10
4


—
Balances irrecoverable and claims abandoned.
471
13
10
—
—
—




63,872
8
0
9,707
6
2
125,193
10
7
29,200
18
8




Total Deficits
£73,579
14
2
Total Surpluses
£154,394
9
3





Net Surplus …
£80,814
15
1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. Kelly: I should like to put one question. Why is there this saving in regard to experiments and research? I cannot understand it at this time.

2.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): With regard to Vote 3, there was a deficit of £51,000. That was the total deficit. There was an underspending of £320,000 under subhead A of this Vote, due to payments for aeroplanes and engines not maturing as early as had been anticipated. That

surplus was more than offset by the total armament and technical equipment generally and, therefore, the Vote to which the hon. Gentleman refers shows not a surplus but a deficit. More was actually spent than was anticipated.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening. Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after Two o'Clock, a.m.